"1 ) The context changes nothing . The comment is the same with or without more sentences surrounding it . 2 ) `` rejected giving marriage rights/benefits to unmarried straight couples `` ? ? ? That 's like saying , `` I believe that black votes should not be counted , and whites who choose not to vote should also not have their votes counted. `` To try and compare a situation where one group has the CHOICE to use a right , and then chooses not to , to a second group that is DENIED that choice , is mind-bogglingly absurd ."
"Not at all . The issue is receiving the marriage benefits . If gays were given all of the benefits of marriage for just living together , we would n't have a fight at all as you would have gotten what you want . It is n't the marriage that is important to you but the benefits . And the debate in Italy of singles who live together seeking marriage benefits also is a good example of the can of worms that will be opened if society concedes to the gay crusaders the undue rights they are demanding . Why is it absolutely impossible for you to reply to an issue without first redefining it to fit your warped World view ? Have you no objectivity within you at all ?"
"rejected giving marriage rights/benefits to unmarried straight"
"If gays were given all of the benefits of marriage for just living together , we would n't have a fight at all as you would have gotten what you want"