This is bullshit, my best friend growing up turned out to be gay and the marriage thing was a big deal. I.e. getting the same benefits and legal status etc (whether those things should exist for marriage at all is a whole other tangent I should add).
Maybe your friend and his friends didn't give a shit, had no intentions to marry for whatever reason, but this statement is patently false.
In the UK civil partnerships were opened to all couplings, but no, that wasnt good enough, it had to be called marriage and it had to be potentially conducted in a church before they were happy. And of course they still arent happy.
It was not the tax/inheritance benefits they were after (the tax benefits were lost long ago, and the inheritance can be arranged using a will) it was to mock the institution of marriage deliberately, as an act of vandalism.
To me it is as stupid as wheelchair users wanting to call ramps steps, because that is what able bodied people use, and why should they be any different?
Correct.
It's a FACT that the gay community was until recently, divided as to their OPINIONS on marriage among gays. Or more accurately, didn't really see it as a need.
This new 'need' is part of the push for a newly defined 'equity'.
My friend's opinion was at the time, the more predominant one.
That opinion being not FOR or AGAINST the idea.
Rather, that the idea was MOOT as gays typically had multiple partner scenarios. Typically. Your agreement isn't required. Your friends desire to marry doesn't change the FACT as stated.
it was NOT a gay talking point until recently.
My friend is over 60 and has been part of the community his whole life.
He also is in an inter-racial relationship.
I think he's in a position where he would know better than you or your younger newly 'woke' gay friend as to the historical accuracy.
This is bullshit, my best friend growing up turned out to be gay and the marriage thing was a big deal. I.e. getting the same benefits and legal status etc (whether those things should exist for marriage at all is a whole other tangent I should add).
Maybe your friend and his friends didn't give a shit, had no intentions to marry for whatever reason, but this statement is patently false.
In the UK civil partnerships were opened to all couplings, but no, that wasnt good enough, it had to be called marriage and it had to be potentially conducted in a church before they were happy. And of course they still arent happy.
It was not the tax/inheritance benefits they were after (the tax benefits were lost long ago, and the inheritance can be arranged using a will) it was to mock the institution of marriage deliberately, as an act of vandalism.
To me it is as stupid as wheelchair users wanting to call ramps steps, because that is what able bodied people use, and why should they be any different?
Others opinions are patently false.
Got it.
What year are you speaking of?
The push for gay marriage is 20 years old now.
Things have changed due to rings in noses - as newly engineered 'needs'.
The point. The gay community promoting 'Gay marriage' (supported or not, allowed or not) is A RECENT TREND, not a tradition of any kind.
Correct, your friend's opinion is ridiculous and asinine. It is an OPINION not fact.
Correct. It's a FACT that the gay community was until recently, divided as to their OPINIONS on marriage among gays. Or more accurately, didn't really see it as a need.
This new 'need' is part of the push for a newly defined 'equity'.
My friend's opinion was at the time, the more predominant one. That opinion being not FOR or AGAINST the idea. Rather, that the idea was MOOT as gays typically had multiple partner scenarios. Typically. Your agreement isn't required. Your friends desire to marry doesn't change the FACT as stated.
it was NOT a gay talking point until recently.
My friend is over 60 and has been part of the community his whole life. He also is in an inter-racial relationship. I think he's in a position where he would know better than you or your younger newly 'woke' gay friend as to the historical accuracy.
Your friend is ignorant, sorry. You can throw stats at me all you want, and make big assumptions as well, but that does not change this FACT.
You related ONE GUY's opinion on the issue and are butt-hurt that it's not actual fact. Good luck with the reasoning lessons.