{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Cultmeister:
1/13/2013 10:30:56 PM
5
Yes, i would like the opportunity to [b][u]MARRY[/u][/b] someone of the same gender in the futur on the grounds of equality
different =/= equal
that includes the name.
either change the name of marriage to 'civil partnership', or allow gay marriage.
English
-
> "different =/= equal" Is this some sort of natural law? Is it an indisputable fact that different but unequal is inherently unequal? It's kinda funny how you're almost writing the rules to the argument.
-
Edited by Seggi: 1/13/2013 11:12:28 PM[quote]Is it an indisputable fact that different but unequal is inherently unequal?[/quote] [quote]Is it an indisputable fact that unequal is inherently unequal?[/quote] Seriously, though, it's quite obvious that those seeking to deprive queer people of a right to marry are doing it out of homophobia.
-
[quote] Is it an indisputable fact that different but unequal is inherently unequal?[/quote] According to the Supreme Court of the United States it is, as they ruled in Brown v Board of Education.
-
So the Supreme Court dictates exactly how the world is supposed to work? Even though they clearly haven't solved all problems yet? (And most likely have made mistakes.) All hail the Supreme Court, Supreme of all things.
-
By ruling that "separate but equal is inherently unequal", they've set a legal precedent, and should find that any Civil Union illegal on the grounds of their previous ruling. They're in charge of the laws in our country.
