23 ms·
> 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 deni
by 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.