Not true, that wasn't my argument at all. IF we alter the definition of marriage, and base it on a sexual behavior, then we MUST, by the Constitution, allow the same consideration for any other sexual behavior. You can't say, this particular sexual behavior is allowed to marry, but that one isn't, because of 'equal protection' aspects of the Constitution. I know you all like to use the interracial marriage analogy, but it would be like lifting the ban on black and white marriage, but other interracial mixes don't qualify. You couldn't do that, the other races would raise hell and demand their constitutional right to equal protection, and rightly so. Same situation here, except instead of race, we are dealing with sexual behavior. Once you have established that a criteria for marriage can be sexual behavior, that becomes a standard you have to accept for ANY sexual behavior to follow.
Currently, it is not legal to fuck animals, but I am sure people do it. Well, if all the animal fuckers decided to form a coalition, and lobby for their rights, who is to say that one day, cross-species marriage won't be on the table? And when it gets put on the table, what are you going to say to prevent it, when you've already established that marriage CAN be based on sexual behavior? You've established a precedent, and you can't go back and undo what you've done. The argument you would face, would be very similar to homosexuals argument, the animal fuckers can't help they were born that way, and who are you to deny them the right to be with who they love? Especially when you have already allowed that right based on another sexual behavior?
Now, you can presume this won't ever happen because of animal rights advocates, but what about incestuous relations? What about this arbitrary age restriction? What about polygamists? All of these can be brought to the table, when we have established that marriage can be based on a sexual preference, instead of how it is currently defined. I just feel like, Gay Marriage would open a whole can of worms you don't want to open. You can believe this would never happen, but once was a time, we would have NEVER imagined homosexuals wanting to marry. If you had asked someone 50 years ago about this, they would have laughed you out of the room.
Every action has a consequence. Liberals are really good at not seeing these consequences, then we all have to deal with them after the fact. There are too many potentially bad consequences to redefining marriage based on sexual behavior, and I don't think some people have considered them at all.
The proposal I laid out, is a way to resolve this issue and give every side what they want. I'll tell ya, it's rare that such a solution ever exists for any problem. But we see here in this thread, some people want to ignore my suggestion, and continue calling me names and denigrating my position. To them, I am not convinced this is even about finding a solution, it's not about helping homosexual couples realize the benefits of traditional marriage, it's about ideology, social reform, political agendas, and attacking religion.
