So child molesters are okay with her?

Whatever. She chose that outfit as much as she chose her bigotry. All I see is ugliness when I see her picture. There's no nice way to insult a person that so deserves to be insulted.

Ah man, I hate white knights like you. This bitch deserves all the hate. She's one ugly, nasty bitch.

I mean, that's just fining a different word to describe what the government already does.

I don't know that I need the government to use a different word than the rest of society for an arrangement just because some people have a special ritual around it.

A government marriage is required for recognition by the government, and a (whatever religion or group) marriage is required for recognition by (whatever religion or group).
It's not that one should stop using the word or the other has a more legitimate claim, it's just different things in the same category.

I know that guy. It's always funny to me when those memes pop up.

He said it was exhausting always feeling like he was going to be outed.

This is definitely something that feels all too common with queer people. I know it's certainly how I felt before coming out as trans, to where I'd want to share memes with my friend group but constantly policed myself worrying that somehow it would "tip them off" somehow. I was in a weird place of being extremely invested in trans issues while also being pretty transphobic at times, basically so no one would think I was so interested because I was trans or anything.

It definitely all led to a lot of tension and anger and a very poor state of mental health overall, and just fucking sucked having to put on such a shitty persona all the time to try and hide my true self.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to folks like him, we all find our own way and some have a more direct path than others, but I do get frustrated how a lot of gay folks like that center themselves in their stories. They may have hated themselves most, but they hated the rest of us too, they may have been targeting themselves, but they hurt the rest of us too. They get big and loud when they're homophobic, but when they accept themselves many get small and quiet, when they've got some karma to work back.

I get where you are coming from but this just feels like a semantics argument. Just because it’s called marriage in both venues doesn’t mean it isn’t already functionally exactly the way you put it.

It feels like a semantics argument because to a large extent it's a fight about semantics. Most of the people opposed to gay marriage aren't fighting the idea that gay folks should be able to see each other in the hospital, or be covered by each other's insurance, etc - they're fighting the idea that their religious ritual from their homophobic religion should be required to accept gay people and/or that they should be required to accept gay people as being in the same spiritual state as them as a consequence of their ritual. It's why arguments against gay marriage are only extremely rarely about the legal rights and privileges granted by marriage but nearly always about things like "sanctity."

Fully separating the legal and cultural/religious concepts of marriage, including in the language is meant to resolve that by ceding the semantic ground without having to cede any actual rights. You qualify and fill out the paperwork? You're in a civil partnership. Do whatever rituals you want, argue whether or not each other's rituals "count" all you want, everyone gets the same rights legally and the government is not in any way saying your rituals are or are not equivalent to anyone else's.

They are separate, but the term marriage is often what people fight over.

For example the Catholic Church, the largest sect of Christianity, leader believed that domestic partnerships should be allowed and protected. But the term marriage held a "sanctity" to the church and thus they did not believe in marrying them within the religion.

So if you took the term marriage out of the documents, the issue becomes "I don't believe others should have rights that I have" and even their religion doesnt agree with them. Thus the bullshit of hiding behind freedom of religion to hate/persecute others starts to dissolve.

I'm fine with recognizing partnerships in manners that could be beneficial to society, 2+ people residing in a residence can reduce resource consumption for buildings as well as reducing travel distance which ultimately makes for healthier living situations and less fuel consumption. So even if we get to renewable locally cultivated energy, the amount we need to use is reduced. That doesn't mean people can't live by themselves, or live in the middle nowhere on a 5-17 acre farm if they choose, but maintain infrastructure in small areas is just easier.

It doesn't have too. It is only a violation of said paradox if the religion does not tolerate the existence of people outside of their religion.

We do in the city, it is just really, really bad.

Fine... lifted oversized pickup with no line of sight and truck nuts... much more likely

Bible thumpers tend to fear intelligence, so that all tracks