Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Neocon who wrote (154249)	12/16/2004 4:18:51 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) of 281500

So the compelling reason to have civil unions is to not enrage people who want to discriminate against homosexuals. Wait...aren't you the guy who talks frequently about appeasement? Isn't that a bad thing? How do you get around the fact that this is a separate "drinking fountain"- in your own mind. I'm really curious about that. You don't see anything niggardly in keeping the word "marriage" legally, and with the power of the state, just for heterosexuals? Other than making those who want to discriminate comfortable, I don't see any other reason to keep the word chaste and pure (and is it all that pure anyway, with divorce rates as high as they are). Obviously it is stressful for those who DO want to discriminate against homosexuals to be disallowed from discriminating- but other than that, I really don't see who we're protecting.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next