Quote:
Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Did you really say "separate but equal"?
|
Did you really say "nostalgia"?
Anyhoo, "Colored folk" is kind of nostalgic too. Folks will just have to just buck up to the fact that "marriage" may involve two pooty stores instead of one. (NTTAWWT)
Quote:
|
If its nothing more than calling two arrangements, identical but for the relative genders of the parties involved, by different names, I don't think the term applies.
|
Well if you're saying the rights/duties for both same and different sex unions should be equal, but should have separate names, I'd say that's a "separate but equal" concept.
Anyways, if it's so important to have a different word apply, why not create TWO new terms. One for lesbo marriages, one for gay ones. How about even MORE new terms describing something that really is, in fact, simply "marriage", such as a word for unions where one of the parties is an FTM (female to male transexual). And one for an MTF. And one.....oh, you get the point.
Quote:
|
B/c we all know the tendencies of government.
|
Gay tendencies? Only in NJ government, baby.
Quote:
|
As I once told a girl who was going to work at the CBO (who absolutely hates my guts for this and other funnies), "sweetie, of course your job is gonna be easy... if there was enough for one person to do, they'd hire two people to do it". For reasons that I think you and I might share, I'm against that happening in any context including the one we are discussing.
|
I don't get this. But then I think the only thing you and I are sharing is retarded conversation on a Friday night. And I'm on percocet. So Hay Tello Ta Mee!!!!
