Name calling?
Incredibly, I apparently have still not made clear that I have no objection to gay couples enjoying all the legal rights, privileges and responsibilities as married couples. Since I had issue with the accuracy of only one of the two things you mentioned, my reply was directed at the one of the two with which I took issue.
|
|
"No objection"?!?
Your argument here seems to be too subtle and too strident at the same time. You seem to me to be objecting a great deal to gay people coming out with fanfare, or getting married, or expecting to be treated as a customer when they want a service from a company.
How is that not "objecting"? It's an understandable position to dislike and argue against the concept of gay marriage. Or even "sterile marriage". :-/ But to simultaneously say that you've got no objection to people being treated equally doesn't make any sense. IMHO. People are treated equally, or they're not. "Separate but equal" isn't equal. What am I missing? Thanks. Cheers, Scott. |
|
Maybe one of my posts?
If this whole "marriage equality" question had instead been posed as, "Should homosexual civil commitments (or whatever phrase) receive all benefits under the law and be recognized as being the equal of marriage?" you'd have heard nary a peep from me. http://forum.iwethey...iwt?postid=388345 My father used to have a saying, "Let's agree to call a spade a spade." I just don't want to call a spade a shovel. |
|
Doesn't matter
We went through this with Beep. Separate but equal does not work, many thousandS laws and millions of contracts would need to be rewritten then litigated. So no point in building that straw man, it would never happen and merely a distraction.
|