Quote:
Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher+May 17 2005, 04:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flames Draft Watcher @ May 17 2005, 04:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-oilers_fan@May 17 2005, 10:39 PM
I don't agree with catering to the left like that. Let them call their "entaglements" 'civil unions' and any opposite sex couple who wants to get married and keep the term 'marriage' can do so. So often solutions, to what seem like major problems, are actually quite simple. All this pandering to people is ridiculous, and I've about had enough.
|
Would you feel the same if we weren't allowing blacks to marry but only giving them "civil unions." Everyone could "marry" except blacks? [/b][/quote]
They can have their freaking civil unions all they want. Let the religious people keep the damn term "marriage". Is that so hard? If an opposite sexed couple simply wants a civil union, let them have it as well. The term marriage means something to certain people, so why does that have to be screwed with?
And don't even bring race into this. My stance is not one of sexism, and the CPC policy isn't based on that either. It's about maintaining a word that has significant meaning to certain people. If the homosexuals that want to get married simply want all the same benefits, what is the problem with civil unions?