HappySqurriel said:
5 is completely unrelated to my argument and what I'm saying is unrelated to 6 ... As an analogy, Sports Utility Vehicles (SUVs) have been designed to go off road for generations; regardless of whether someone takes them off road, or whether the vehicle has something wrong with it that prevents it from going off road, it doesn't stop it from being a sports utility vehicle. A sports car was not designed to go off road, and you could probably not take it off road even if you tried really hard. Is it discriminatory to say that a sports car is not a sport utitlity vehicle even though they both have "sport" in the name and are used for recreation? The government may have no right to provide preferential treatment to either kind of relationship, but that doesn't make a gay relationship the same as a marriage. |
You have to understand that the whole point is to change the definition of marriage.
If there is a great store which excludes certain minorities, what would be the best course of action: To build a new store next to it where everyone can go (and let the two co-exist), or to change the guidelines of the old one?
