Gay marriage and equal rights

So before I start this round, I've promised myself I'll refrain from using the "But then people will start marrying children and goats and 5 people at once" argument, because it's absolutely idiotic, and I refuse to invoke it, so I'll stick to other things. Moving on... You said: "what happens in the scenario that if a gay couple were to be recognized as married in mas, but then move to Idaho. Would Idaho recognize them as married if gay marriage is illegal in Idaho?" Theoretically, Idaho would have to give full faith and credit to the laws of MA, and recognize that couple of marriage. In practice, because of how federal courts usually interpret that clause of the Constitution, and because of DOMA, marriage is essentially the sole province of each individual state - being married in one state isn't necessarily the same thing as being married in another. But that's not exclusive to gay marriage. The point I was trying to make was that gay marriage isn't universally illegal - it's up to each state, and not each state has banned it. You said: "That is what it all boils down to is that we cannot marry who we choose." Yes, not everyone can marry whom they choose in most states. But choice isn't a human right - you haven't proven that everyone should be entitled to marry whom they choose. You said: "Which goes to say that Homosexuals are treated as second class citizens solely on the rights that they are denied, such as work benefits, hospital visits, the right to adopt. ect." This may be true in some states - I know it's certainly true in Texas where I used to live. But let's examine how to rectify this problem. Is legalizing gay marriage the only solution? Surely there is a way to grant homosexual couples similar rights to heterosexual couples without legalizing gay marriage. This is a separate issue from gay marriage, and can have a separate solution. You said: "And this Union argument. what is a "union" do hospitals recognize that, do work offices recognize that? NO and many of these union things require the participants to have lived with each other for at least 7 years." Again, legislatively there is a solution that doesn't touch marriage at all. You said: "A non Christian can get married, but a gay cannot. Logically that doesn't work" First, it doesn't have to logically work. Logically someone making $40,000 a year shouldn't vote for a Republican, but it happens, a lot! If certain types of laws are really coming straight from the people, we can't apply logic to that. Second, the criminalization of gay marriage isn't about Christianity the religion, it's about the morals that are distilled from Christianity. A non-Christian marrying someone of the opposite sex still conforms to those morals despite not being Christian, whereas a homosexual does not. You said: "the fact that they are not treated as "Normal" couples and they physically have rights taken away from them is what is flawed in the system" I'm not sure how you physically take rights away from someone, but you are correct that this is a flaw in the system. But like I've said before, it can be rectified without legalizing gay marriage. If your only argument is that gay couples don't have the same rights as heterosexual couples, as far as hospital visits, etc., that can definitely be addressed without even going near gay marriage.