"Republicunt": why use terms like this?

[Amarok]

Just because some people with specific sexual proclivities don't want to enter the only kind of on-going commitment that includes the potential to produce offspring,...that personal reluctance doesn't mean they're being denied any specific right.

Ah a tired re hatch of the " But they can get married to another person of the same sex" Here's a hint never use an argument who's reversal you would never accept nor could be used to push other discrimination's  . They don't want to marry just anyone they want to marry the person they are in love with . And love how you push the notion that this is about sex and ignore the fact it's about love. And modern marriage has dick all to do with having kids that's a feature marriage not it's point .

---

As for civil unions blacks ,women, and natives did not have to settle for a separate institution on voting even thou it offended bigot morons . Why should gays have to settle for less in marriage ?

---

In your opinion

Nope by fact

---

This type of attitude is part of the problem. It is very disingenuous for a liberal/progressive type to pose as accepting of "reasonable" social conservatives...just so long as said social conservatives don't have socially conservative opinions. It the lib/prog has already decided that people who believe marriage is defined by the traditional union of one man and one woman are bigots then the lib/prog has basically eliminated any space for discussion.

Only if you view it as a problem . In this case social conservatism is neither reasonable and earns it's title of bigoted. And you confuse tolerate with accept .