reply to post by Annee
i'm not JPZ and what does its banning have to do with YOUR statement ??
i am not discussing the opinion of any poster except you atm.
why are you deflecting and antagonizing rather answering the question ??
fyi, i don't create threads as i don't have the time to maintain them.
does that mean i cannot participate in yours ??
look, i am merely trying to understand (for about 30yrs now) what equality
has to do with an argument/legal battle about extending/expanding
yet, you said it and i asked you to explain, how is that a derail ??
i am not against "marriage for all", i am not against the premise of the legal challenge, however, i am confused as to how any aspect of equality
under the law
relates to preferential treatment.
care to explain ??
and to be totally honest, i am baffled how such a battle FOR preferential treatment would be referred to as a win for equality
do you understand what i'm saying here ??
"If changes are to be made - - - then make them after everyone is EQUAL" - - - means that gays should be allowed to have the same rights as
heteros - - - exactly as they are Today - - Right Now. That would be Equal.
yes, i comprehended it the first time i read it, that's why i
asked the question.
so, let's break it down ... "If
changes are to be made" ... state by state, they already are.
"then make them after everyone is EQUAL
" ... well clearly, that's not happening (see above)
so, does this mean that you support preferential treatment, just not for everyone
i really didn't think the concept was that difficult to understand.
you said (it) [your statement] ...
means that gays should be allowed to have the same rights as heteros
ok, why stop there ??
shouldn't it mean all
ppl are equal under the law, period ??
why the specific breakdown ??
i want to understand why preferntial treatment under the law
is ok with anyone at this point.
issues of discrmination were long settled law.
please know that i am not picking at you
in any manner.
i am trying to understand why the real battle for equality
is being subverted in favor of extended preferential treatment.
[yes, i know that isn't the topic either, but you brought it up so i asked, ok ?]
and to this, i have to say, HUH ??
If anyone wants to work on reform and doing away with Legal marriage - - - it should not be done after everyone has the same Equal
rights as they stand Today.
marriage, as a specific issue, doesn't concern me as much as equality for all
under the law.
as for marriage, i think it should stand as an independent religious activity and out of the state, but that's my opinion.
those who are welcomed and married via their church should be recognized everywhere
(under the protections of the 1st Amendment)
but, preferential treatment for ANY group is still preferential treatment
and personally, i was hoping this movement was to get beyond preferential treatment for anyone.
and with regards to your comment, please explain how this makes EVERYONE equal under the law, without a qualifier (marriage) ??
*** please note, i've been married and don't intend on doing it again. i am still a family provider, a grandparent and am offended that i don't
for any preferential treatment simply because i don't WANT to be married. what's up with that ????