You just made the point I was illustrating - to arbitrarily define that
"marriage" can only be between persons of opposite gender may be traditional
but it is an anachronism based solely on an aversion to homosexuality. It
presupposes that homosexual love is somehow of lesser moral quality than
heterosexual love. People should be free to marry any person who wishes to
marry them back, regardless of their respective genders, and have the legal
entity of a marriage of two same gender persons be indistinguishable in any
manner from that of two opposite gender persons. That is not to say that
religious organizations shouldn't be able to define marriage and those
eligible to do so within the context of their congregations and rituals as
they wish - I was married in the Catholic church and my wife and I had to
conform to certain requirements that were not part of the civil requirements
for marriage and that is at it should be. But the *civil* authority should
treat same-sex and opposite-sex couples exactly alike in every respect,
including the terminology that is used to refer to the union.


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
et...

"Steve House" wrote in message
...

Really?


Yes, really.



Go down to your local county clerk's office and apply for a
marriage license to someone of your own gender.


Marriage involves persons of the opposite sex. Homosexuals are free to
marry persons of the opposite sex just as heterosexuals are. Homosexuals
are not denied any rights in this matter, nor in any other matter I can
think of.