4 ms·
They of course supported gay rights! However some disagreed with the "marriage" word; some disagreed with the need for a law to allow it, rather than removing a
by Jare 9y ago
They of course supported gay rights! However some disagreed with the "marriage" word; some disagreed with the need for a law to allow it, rather than removing any existing law or clause that denied it. Those are the two arguments that stuck with me, there were others (different countries, different takes). It was definitely food for thought.
- dwaltrip 9y ago> However some disagreed with the "marriage" word; some disagreed with the need for a law to allow it, rather than removing any existing law or clause that denied it. This is a minor technical point that distracts from the main discussion, and doesn't really support the implication from your earlier comment that some gay people are against gay marriage rights. Saying method 2 is better than method 1 is not the same as opposing method 1.
- forgottenpass 9y agoSaying method 2 is better than method 1 is not the same as opposing method 1. What about outright opposing Method 1 because you don't think the Ends justify the Means? Even if you agree with the Ends? Even if you like Method 2? I'm my experience, that gets me branded as a monster. I tend to keep my mouth shut.
- Jare 9y agoYou, and I, consider it a minor technical point, but they do not. In some cases it is important enough for them to have not married despite over a decade of being together. Again, that should be food for thought. The implication does not exist unless you want to put it there. I even added a second, longer sentence to emphasize that being against a particular law is not the same as being against gay rights. The fact that you insist the implication is there despite all that is precisely my point.