Gay People Should Have Equal Rights As Straight People Regarding Marriage and Adoption

I'm grateful that you respect my opinion, And I respect yours. From what I've read of your arguments it seems to me that you stance on this argument, And correct if I'm wrong, Is predicated on the idea that categorisation will inevitably result in discrimination, And that things that are truly treated equally should not be different in name. In response to your comment on my chip analogy (once more): I agree there is all different flavours of chips, And I agree they are there to suit the taste, And perhaps needs, Of different people. Yes, Nonetheless they are still chips. The same way that, If we were to have a different union for homosexuals, Both marriage and homosexual unions are still considered under contractual and consensual unions. In response to your comments referring to "separate but equal:" I did do some digging onto the Internet and I learnt about the "separate but equal" legislation. I agree that it was terrible, But I don't agree that just because there is a chance of discrimination we should take that as absolute certainty. By your own words you believe that "separating things that are different and calling them equal" is "not equal. " Whilst I do agree that in that particular case that may have been correct, I don't agree that the population should base their stance on issues because of a possibility to be discriminated against. Take the Paralympics again. There are specific "qualifications" to join the Paralympics. A regular person can't just join such a team, But must fit all the criteria. If a person doesn't fit said criteria, Then they should be kept separate. That doesn't make you any less equal than the Paralympians, It's just means you don't fit said criteria. This doesn't mean we should change the definition of the Paralympics to incorporate those who have perfect health, For there is already the Olympics. The Olympics, Might I also add, Is separate from the Paralympics, But no less equal. The view that anything that has the potential to be discriminated against based upon separation is simply not sustainable. Just because homosexual couples didn't fit the said criteria for marriage did not give any valid reason to change the definition to incorporate such couples. There are already civil unions, Which I believe, Should carry all of the benefits of marriage. Also, I am not quite sure why you brought up the "separate but equal" legislation. If I remember correctly I said that it's not the "same" but still equal. Difference is really not the same as separation. I just don't believe that they should be recognised as the same, Not that they should be physically separate. They shouldn't be classified the same way because they simply aren't the same. The same way we distinguish ethnicity. I'm sure you don't consider White Americans and African Americans the same, But still equal. The point is, We shouldn't call anything something that it isn't. In response to "Someone with disabilities could still potentially be in the regular Olympics if their disability didn"t hold them back from being able to compete with the best athletes in the world. " I agree with this statement, But as you've stated, This requires the athlete to meet the unchanged criteria. In this case the criteria was that "their disability didn't hold them back. " Changing the definition of marriage would be synonymous to changing the criteria to include those who may still be "held back" by their disability to ensure that they still aren't being discriminated against. You may feel that this redefining of the Olympics is more inclusive but I would make the case that this new format may become almost unrecognisable transformed. In response to ". . . Mandatory to kept separate. " In the same way that a disabled person who's "disability didn't hold them back" could still participate in the Olympics, Such could a homosexual person get married before the redefinition. Whilst it may not have been at all ideal, It certainly wasn't mandatory that only heterosexuals could get married. In response to your comment ". . . That is exactly the same. " Which brings me to the point where you said they were "exactly the same. " Marriage of two people of the same sex is simply not the same as marriage between a male and a female. No less, But not the same. They would only possibly by the same if males and females were the same. . . Which they aren't. The fact that homosexual marriage wasn't legal proves that it is different from marriage. By calling it something else (maybe not something as derogatory as a "civil union") we are recognising the difference and accepting it. We are being more diverse by calling it something else instead of just broadening the definition. What you seem to be saying is that things that are treated the same should be called the same. Men and woman are recognised as being both separate (not literally) and different, Yet equal.