As to the interracial marriages, well, it's a pity that "race mixing" is inavitable, but what can we do?
staringelf, no racism from me. I am the most anti-racist person in the world.
Yeah, ok Katbeidar. that wasn't a racist comment my ass. Maybe it wasn't your intention for it to sound racist, but in this context it's kind of hard for it not to be taken as one.
But in my opinion marriage is only for a man and a woman, as I said before. Gay couples will as happy together under a legal union.
As for this comment, I can tell that from a US prospective, this is not the case. Unless the word marriage is attached to a "Legal Union", the couple that attains the union does not have egual rights to a couple that is "married". The laws are wored in such a way that it is not possible for Civil Unions and Marriage to be the same thing.
Another point I'd like to make that I really cannot for the life of me understand, so maybe you can clear this up for me. How come you say you are not against a "legal union" of some kind that grants same-sex couples the same rights, priviledges and responsibilities as a married couple, however you're against calling it a marriage? Personally you and half the world are getting hung up by semantics. It's a word nothing more. Marriage is the principle of binding two people that are not related to each other in a commited relationship, which legal, spiritually, mentally and emotionally binds them as a family. What's the point of having two seperate names for the same idea? It's repetative and a slap in the face to every homosexual, non-traditional family/union in the entire world.
|