Furthermore, as a couple of others pointed out, it's kind of a "separate but equal" situation. Why do homosexuals and heterosexuals need exclusive channels to seek the same benefits? Why is the homosexuals' channel so much more legally limiting? The solution would be for governments to grant marital rights and benefits to one status accessible by any couple, requiring heterosexual couples to obtain a secular civil union in addition to their religious marriage to secure those benefits. You can imagine how well that'd go over.
@Milkman: Wasn't posing an argument. Simply saying I disagree. The only embarrassment here is the hoard of people attacking me for saying "I disagree."
To be fair, you didn't just disagree. You included a dismissive generalization of gay marriage supporters.
No, I included a dismissive generalization of people that attack me for disagreeing..To be fair.
I dunno, I feel like "college students wailing about equality" is a broader categorization than that. It's possible to wail about equality without attacking anyone.
@Milkman: Wasn't posing an argument. Simply saying I disagree. The only embarrassment here is the hoard of people attacking me for saying "I disagree."
To be fair, you didn't just disagree. You included a dismissive generalization of gay marriage supporters.
What? Dude hadn't had cornbread before. You have an apparent incapacity to recognize that another person's life experience can be different from your own. Who's sheltered?
Log in to comment