Also, women seem to have constitutional “reproductive rights” that men will never have… we’re fathers if and when she says so… sometimes even if we arent even the “father” (see above)!

Sorry friend, men and women are certainly NOT treated equally under the law… especially when it comes to family law. Which, as it so happens, is exactly what we’re discussing here when we talk about “equal marriage”…

Separate simply isn’t.

PS: You probably should avoid marrying someone of the opposite sex who you don’t love and aren’t attracted to. But then, nobody said you had to. Only that you can, if you want to. Same as me.

Men and women do NOT have unequal rights under the law. I fully recognize men and women are not equal – many men are not equal to each other and many women are not equal to each other either – the point is that, under the law, we ARE treated equally.

For me to have to marry someone of the opposite sex whom I don’t love and to whom I am not attracted would indeed be second class. Luckily, in the United States and in many other countries, I wouldn’t have to worry about that, because same-sex marriage is legal 😉 Sorry my friend 😉

However, if you would like me to further denigrate marriage, I could easily marry one of my friends simply for the benefits and we could each carry on our own separate romantic lives – I already know a few gay men and women who have done this. Do you truly believe this furthers the cause of marriage?

Men and women are not equal. Not physically, not emotionally, and certainly not legally. And that’s a good thing — men and women are just too different to be treated equally. We have different, and unequal rights, under the law.

So, are two women equal to two men equal to a man and wife? Impossible! No more than two apples are “equal” to two oranges are “equal” to an apple and an orange.

If you want a marriage that is equal to my own, then you’re going to have to marry the opposite sex. Sorry friend, anything else would be second-class.

I don’t understand what you mean by separate but equal? Do you perhaps not have a good understanding of what equality under the law means? It doesn’t mean we are all EQUAL, but it does mean that we are to be treated equally. I believe your “separate but equal” argument – at least the way you like to frame it – is similar to the arguments made against interracial marriages in the past.

As for what you can imagine, if your imagination is limited or if the yuck factor is a problem for you, then maybe you should open your mind a bit. I have plenty of straight friends who think like you, but I don’t believe them for a minute. Then again, I’ve chosen to close my mind to the possibility… maybe you have too. We could both choose to open them.

Meanwhile, jayhuck continues to argue for a “separate but equal” version of equality… but I’m not buying… it may work for jayhuck’s love life, but it sure seems like an injustice for the child with no father — just an extra mom.

I know… That’s kinda what I was getting at…

I truly appreciate your thoughtful insight, but its not equality we speak of when we say that gay people can marry someone of the opposite sex. Not true equality anyway.

Gay people can marry…. just someone of the opposite sex

But that is not factually correct. For example:

Most clergy would refuse to marry a gay person to a heterosexual.

The immigration service considers such a marriage to be fraud and criminal.

The Catholic Church considers such a marriage to be grounds for annulment.

Divorce court considers such a marriage to be fraud and the heterosexual can sue for damages.

Employers and coworkers would consider such a marriage as an unfair abuse of the company’s benefits program.

General society is indignant when such marriages are exposed (think Jim McGreevy)

You would never give your blessing for your daughter to marry a gay man.

And finally, Aunt Edna wouldn’t attend or send a gift.

In short, a gay person marrying someone of the opposite sex results in social and financial repercussions and possibly jail.

Those who make this claim do so as though playing some trump card. But either they have not thought this through, or they are being deliberately callous and hateful to even make such an oviously false claim.

Dave G.

As I see it, an activist is anyone who is trying to convince the general populace that GLBT, etc. is a human trait rather than human behavior.

Well then from now on you no longer need to use the term “activist” because by that definition there is no distinction between “gay” and “activist”. I’ve never met a gay person who thinks their orientation is just a behavior and all gay folks that I know of are trying to convince the general populace that their orientation is a human trait.

Of course, most activists are doing the convincing by quietly living their lives with integrity and honesty in front of their friends, neighbors, and family. Oh how very radical of them.