Off-Topic

I don't really care enough about his issue to continue to argue for it. I absolutely think it is unfair, and wrong to withhold equal treatment from people, I am not however nearly as hung up with the titles part. We all have issues that effect us in different ways and this is one that is a non issue for me personally. Obviously there are others here that do not feel the same, and while I find it hard to understand, I respect it.

It's almost a perfect analogy as the term "analogy" is typically used. And it's a very simple question that asks for a one-word response.

Based on what you've said above, being logically consistent with your argument that states should be allowed to have different laws regarding marriage would require similarly approving of Virginia's anti- miscegenation laws. Everything about your argument stays the same except that "interracial" marriage is replaced by "gay" marriage. So the question is a pretty simple one: based on the reasoning employed above, would you have been in favor of Virginia's anti-miscegenation laws? If not, why not [because your arguments above would certainly apply (and were certainly used to varying extents) to the anti-interracial marriage arguments].

I'm not really trying to be an asshole here by pursuing this argument -- just trying to force the issue a bit because I think forcing yourself to try answering these types of questions helps cut through a number of issues and possibly helps re-evaluate certain positions. I'd submit that it's pretty difficult to articulate why the reasoning you've applied above to oppose gay marriage wouldn't similarly apply to laws opposing interracial marriage.

Well I guess in the truest sense of the word, it is good in that it is inferred to be similar in a certain respect, on the basis of the similarity between the issues in other respects. I don't think however comparing an issue of people being deprived of a right (interracial marriage) is a good foundation for an argument about titles (and maybe even a little disingenuous).

I don't really understand this point. The right to marry has already been described as and treated as a vital personal right. In the case overturning interracial marriage laws, for example, the Supreme Court stated: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Why is the freedom to marry an "essential" and "basic civil right" in the context of one kind of marriage but not in the context of another kind of marriage?

Also, tell this dude he can't get married...I dare you.

If you are new to this debate and are unsure of which side to choose, one side's main argument is that "life just isn't fair."

That should help you decide.

You're seriously arguing for "separate but equal" now. Think about the implications of that for just a few minutes without responding. Just THINK.

I am certainly not arguing for separate but equal, I am simply stating that there is an equal available. Acknowledging something doesn't mean you support it.

And to answer your question Kunal, of course I would not be in favor of that scenario, but to imply that the predicament gays face now is the same that interracial couples in VA faced in 1969 is not being truthful. Interracial couples could not wed or form civil unions in Va while gays can engage in one of those today, and the activities, while not exactly the same are very close in concept and benefit.

Let's lighten it up a bit in here, shall we?

Why don't we figure out the economy, wars, immigration, etc, etc, then we can come back to this, but in the mean time let's just be equal and if it's causing catastrophic problems we can assess this after we fix the rest of the problems.

No, absolutely not.

First, as Tom mentioned, over 1,000 federal statutes treat them differently.

Second, the problem is even worse than that as a practical matter. Not only are "civil unions" and "marriage" not the same, but even "gay marriage" is not the same as "heterosexual marriage" under our laws because of things like the federal Defense of Marriage Act. In other words, even people in states like Massachusetts that allow for gay marriage aren't treated the same as other married people. For example, forget civil unions, even gay people who are legally married in Massachusetts can't file federal tax returns as married couples.

There's really nothing to "figure out" in this one. Citizens are being denied basic rights and that's it.

I was under the assumption that CU's allowed for joint tax returns, ownership of assets, shared benefits, etc. If that is not the case then obviously it's not fair.