[M. Bison]

I get what you're saying. And I'm not arguing the two situations are the same. I was talking about the given argument. I just don't think we should keep things as they are (while causing damage to some people) just because of the prejudices of a certain group. There are always going to be people who stick to their prejudices, that doesn't mean the rest should give in to them. Even if you wait 50 more years, there are still going to be people against it, you can wait forever that way.
If you legalize gay marriage, the persons who are against it aren't gonna suffer because of it. In the current situation, there is a group of people who do suffer.

I don't believe nothing should be done either. I'm saying the ludicrous campaign for acceptance through the term "marriage" should end. A great deal of progress could have been made much easier towards same-sex rights were the term "civil union" settled upon by gay rights activists. It's quite clear by now that not all religious individuals will be accepting of "gay-marriage" any time soon since they hold the term "marriage" dear to them religiously, and in some way same-sex would be sacrilege in religious context. The term "civil union" wouldn't be bound to religion and would be simply be a manufactured civil partnership law of the state, so it's free of this religious and tradition barrier of opposition. The opposition of some gay right activists to the term "civil union" simply makes the matter all the worse, since it clearly shows this is more than a fight about rights per-say, but rather one about acceptance. Unfortunately, they're in this way forcing their life style to be accepted by the religion and consequently people through law. You can't strip ones traditions, beliefs, and opinions from them, and expect it not to result in long term resentment.

i.e.:


Although for the life of me, I can't figure out why this poster emphasizes "civil." Do they want an "uncivil" union? Trololo.