Re: OT: What? the clean-shaven outnumber the bearded? "Yer Ugly Mug," etc.

En réponse à Robert B Wilson :


>well, the US constitution doesn't prohibit discrimination for reasons of
>sexual orientation (unless they've passed an amendment recently that
>does, but i think i would have heard about it...)
Already wrong :)) .

>in the US, the main problem with "same-sex marriages" is that the common
>definition of _marriage_ makes a "same-sex marriage" impossible...
We're not talking common definitions here but official definitions. If an
official definition is discriminatory, it is illegal, whatever the common
definition is. It's up to the people to update their definitions and stop
acting so retarded.

>  i
>don't think the government should have the right to change the definition
>of a word
Even if it means better equality for people? And we're not talking about
religious marriage here, only civil marriage. I don't see what's wrong in
updating the civil marriage to everyone. It's a matter of equality, not
dictionary.

>  (if they can do that, they can just ignore the constitution,
>and that would be a Bad Thing...)
I fail to see the connection.

Sorry to say that, but it looks like a bad excuse to deny equality between
gay and straight couples.

Christophe Grandsire.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

You need a straight mind to invent a twisted conlang.

Reply