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.
Originally Posted by lauraloo
I don't think an ordinary citizen who is neutral or indifferent to a law is "allowing it to persist." It is the response of the lawmakers in the legislature to change the laws and the judiciary to do justice. Yes, citizens can and should have input and demand change when necessary, but realistically, you can't expect someone to make an effort to do so unless they feel strongly or passionately about an issue. With all the bad laws we have, you'd need a full-time job to address them all. Also, lawmakers also have a responsibility to take leadership even if the general public do not demand a change or want something different. If it's an issue of justice, they should do justice regardless of the consequences. I don't think the person who isn't out marching on the streets should be held responsible for their failure to do so.

Also, I would bet that at least some of the people posting here about how they want gay marriage haven't actively done anything to promote it besides sharing their opinions (which does have a small ripple effect.) Has every single one of them written their representative, taken petitions, written to the newspapers? If not, they're "allowing it to persist" as much as the person who is ambivalent or neutral on the topic and hasn't done so, even if their personal feelings are different.
Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali