Reply #145: It's a noble intention [View All]

[Maven]

But like I said, it just won't happen.

Fundies will never compromise on this issue, and the fact is, they don't want us to have civil unions either. They don't want any legal "sanctioning" of our relationships because they hate us. That's where it's at. Any progress will be and has been made despite them, not in cooperation.

This debate on "language" is really a smokescreen. It has nothing to do with the particular language itself; it has to do with the relative terms, i.e., whether GLBT relationships should be treated the same as straight relationships. If straights had only civil unions, we'd be inventing some *new* term to describe same-sex relationships. That is where your plan would ultimately fail, even if, in some alternate universe, it came to pass.

There's no shortcut to equality. There was no shortcut during the civil rights movement, and there isn't one now.

They will always use religious arguments, the same way they used religious arguments against feminists, against pro-choice activists, against the civil rights movement, and against interracial couples. There is no way to "out-rationalize" irrational thinking. You must stand up for what is just, what is right, without any consideration for what the haters might think.

So I ask you again: Can you simply support full marriage equality without reservation? The answer is either yes or no.