>>73644746>>73644774You two are arguing different things / have vastly different perspectives.
One anon is saying "when it comes to returns, focus on what brings you a 10 (gays not dying) rather than what brings you a 2 (gay being used as a pejorative, mean words, whatever).
The other anon is saying "focus on local, because trickle down effect spreads across borders (...I think? He's not very clear in that).
What he hasn't said but I feel is his underlying motivation is "never stop pushing until EVERYTHING is EXACTLY the same, and then continue being loud and public so that the public perception doesn't (inevitably) shift back the other way". Legal equality is one thing, and could be said to be admirable goal to strive towards, but attempts to influence public perception is absolutely foul.
>>73644788I'm not the gay anon. I just said "it makes sense to focus on what's close to you".
Personally my stance is that "social acceptance" is itself an ailment of society.
"Complete social acceptance" is a product of the most fundamental unit of society being the individual, rather than the family.
If the fundamental unit was the family, and voting rights / taxes / etc. were relegated to that, then for the homosexual to play ball in influencing society, he would have to still produce a family. The same would go for the hordes of single wine aunts, catladies, incels, players, etc. Focusing on the individual is the height of selfishness in my opinion.
Marriage benefits exist to start savings so that you're more financially comfortable to have children.
>insurance / property rightsShouldn't be tied to marriage in the first place.
