You failed to respond to my accusation that your suggestion that we're "making an exception for the new definition of marriage." You're wrong there, were called on it, and simply let it lie.
[quote name='BigT']Your comparison to the civil rights movement for blacks lacks parallelism.
At the current time, if a homosexual man marries a man, it will not be recognized. Similarly, if a heterosexual man marries a man, it will not be recognized. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals will, however, have marriages recognized to members of the opposite sex. That's equality!
In the case of discrimination against blacks, blacks were not allowed access to opportunities afforded to whites. E.g., a black man could not get the same job as a white man or could not use the same facilities. That is unequal![/quote]
Sure. And the colored fountains were just as nice as the white fountains. It doesn't matter if you *want* to use the colored fountain or not, just know that you have one. Separate but equal if, in your mind, still equal!
Whether or not you wanted to attend a white school, you still had colored schools to attend. That's equal, in your view.
Your logic was hastily built after the fact of this proposition in order to build a philosophical mud hut of "equality," but it's lazy, it's wrong, and you know it. It's a lousy talking point that someone who likes who likes to brandish their MD around as a means of pitiful defense against scrutiny should know better than to use.
If you *MERELY* consider the changing motives for marriage in society, you'll see that sexuality is inherently one of those things. No matter how many "haw haw people don't have sex after marriage" jokes you can think of. Marriage and sex are intimately linked. Undeniably linked.
Like procreation. Or the option of procreation. The choice of marriage to procreate is there or not; so the gay person can marry someone of the opposite sex if they highly value children that much.
But you either want people to lie about their sexuality to themselves, their spouses, and the world (and since you worship at the altar of Alan Keyes I'm guessing that having society go back in the closet IS your ultimate goal), or have some sort of awkward need for a functional look at marriage.
Not "I love you," but "your ability to help reproduce fascinates me," or "I heart your investments." You give one category of people THE CHOICE (since we are free) to marry for love, for reproduction, for wealth, for decades of hot
ing, for a record collection, or for a cheeseburger.
But you want to LIMIT THOSE CHOICES (you want to inhibit those freedoms) for another group of people, and hide behind this pitifully lazy excuse you've culled from the "here's what an idiot tries to use" talking point.
But, in the end, I'll settle for a tiny victory, since you've lazily dodged the very point that you didn't defend that your side's need to amend the language to BEGIN defining marriage as "man/woman" is an implicit admittance that you were wrong about your lazy claim that gay marriage would require "the exception."
Here's what you ignored:
gay marriage = NO constitutional change necessary
no gay marriage = YES constitutional change necessary
And you have the audacity to LIE and suggest that black is white and up is down here! You should be ashamed. Or learn to argue in a more proper manner.
