Is it not equally unfair that a person is limited to 50% of the discriminating restrooms according to their given gender than a person is limited to 50% of the population for a Tax deduction according to their given gender?
A judge has ruled somewhere that bathrooms are for using the bathroom and somewhere else that marriage is for having children... so there is a bill in Washington state that effectively says if you are unable to go to the bathroom that the potty police should arrive and ban you from both bathrooms. In an attempt to redefine marriage, the bill says that if you don't have kids that the marriage should be voided by the baby police.
The argument is not over whether two gay people should be recognized as identical to two heterosexual people. They are clearly NOT the same. There is a difference. The argument is over whether one relationship gets a tax break and the other does not.
While it is encouraging that people recognize that they are NOT the genes and will denounce any discrimination thereof, what is being defended is that a person NOT having the will power to overcome their genes is equivalent to a person who does. Similarly a person that does NOT overcome a genetic predisposition to sin or commit a crime is found no longer responsible and equally should not be discriminated against versus those who DO overcome the genetic predisposition to sin or commit a crime. With that, all law is void on account of it being discriminatory.
In other words the argument presented is NOT that a white person is discriminating against a black person, or that a male is discriminating against a female. The issue being presented is that a de-segregationalist is discriminating against a segregationalist. It is the gay who pairs up by the similarities rather than by the differences to satisfy desires claimed to be genetically predisposed. I'm afraid that I do find that the people have a right to discriminate against it... by rebuke and struggle. The TAX system however is broken from the ground up.
I should add that I find the argument similar to a parent's position when two children fall into lust, but don't really know each other. The parent sees that the marriage won't produce fruit and that the child is merely following a genetic predisposition dictated by hormones. If the gay argument is that two friend constitute a marriage, then there are undocumented marriages all over the place. The gay argument is that the genetic predisposition rules over choice. As a parent, I disagree.
