I mean that you (gy) can accept civil marriage for gays but personally not "approve" of it. People accept that there should be rights for common-law heterosexual couples and their children, in order to do justice, but they may still not think that it is an ideal situation in principle... and it doesn't really matter what someone personally THINKS if they are not opposing peoples' legal rights, when it comes down to it. Their views may be distasteful to some - others may not want to associate with them - but as long as those views are not doing a social injustice they are entitled to them.
Originally Posted by Amneris
I understand what you've said above, but the difference from the examples you mentioned is that there is already a law supporting this injustice, and instead of fighting for justice, even though you don't agree with the issue, you (gy) allow the injustice to persist because you agree with the law's sentiments, even though it's discrimination to have those sentiments made into law. As you said, it's ok to not agree with the lifestyle as a citizen, but that doesn't make it ok for lawmakers to make it a legal issue.

Generally, what Trenell said; just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean you shouldn't have your rights. In this case, allowing the law to persist is perpetuating injustice.
Not all who wander are lost.

Fine and thin 3a. PW: curls