Exactly the same? No, but fundamentally the same - yes.
Gender relevancy? Careful there, you better not stop on the toes of equality when you're trying to claim something there.
Sex is relevant for sexual relations, having babies, and body parts - indeed.
The parental argument is not even in a question here. Gay couples are allowed to adopt children, or have children. There is no question there. Whether they are married or not is irrelevant to child bearing.
I mean, really? Is this really the intellectual level of ATOT?
No, that's not the question at all. Nor was children ever a legitimate question in the Gay Marriage debate.
I can absolutely see the logic fail in YOU that you, naturally, presumed that the sex of the Father was the operative descriptor here.
Here it is for your puny mind:
1 Father
10 Mothers
10 Children
Instead of
2 parents per child, you have
1.1 parents. This gets worse when the mothers have more than 1 child (and obviously, applies to 2 parent families with lots of children as well), but you can clearly see how the problem gets compounded.
Correct. And Wrong. Because of the above. And your own ignorance. And stupidity. :awe:
What's going on here? Are we forcing people to have gay sex?
Gays just want Equal Protection (a compelling reason) to get married. It does not affect anyone else.
Or do you also think that letting Blacks have rights have also affected Whites?
I suppose it has. Whites can't have slaves anymore. Justice really sucks sometimes.
OH MY GOD, Massachusetts is like a majorly totally changed society. In the past 7 years, we've become a totally different SOCIETY!! LIKE OH EM GEE!!!!!
No one is saying Gay Marriage is not different than regular marriage. Is interracial marriage different than regular marriage? Marriage between an 18 year old and 80 year old? How about marriage between long distant cousins?
Yea, they're all different than "regular marriage", but fundamentally, they subscribe to the same goals and ideals of marriage, which is what makes them fundamentally the same.