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

"Equal rights. " When you say the are you referring with the financial and legal aspects, The word marriage, A wedding. . . Or all of them? If your referring to the financial aspects, People can be recognised as being in a civil union and be allowed to have the same financial and legal advantages as married couples. If your referring to the word marriage. . . Calling something what it's not is not benifial for anyone. I do understand the current definition of marriage has changed in recent years, And what I'm tryin to say is that it should be reverted to what it was, For that is the definition that has been most widely accepted, And the definition that has lasted the longest. When I was a referring to the apple chips, The point I was trying to make was that if you can change something enough it no longer means the same thing. Now the so called "corn chips" I made aren't corn chips at all but rather "apple chips" called "corn chips. " Not that I have anything against apple chips, I'm sure they're just as good as corn chips, Just that they shouldn't be called corn chips. The same way I'm not against homosexuals being "wed" and having all the legal and finantial benefits, I'm just against the calling of it as "marriage. " You keep bringing up things like interracial marriage, Which I'm fine with because it stays true to the (primarily) universal definition of marriage. I'm sure that those who pushed for that to be legalised made the case that it's "still a male and a female that love each other" which I'm fine with, But I think it's wrong to compare interracial marriage to homosexual "marriage", The same way that you think it's unfair to compare it to plant/animal marriages. I understand that you believe marriage to be consential, But in the future, This may be changed to include things like animals and plants. The same way, If I may add, That the law was changed to incorporate homosexual marriage. Just because laws and definition are changed does not mean they are always "correct. " When drawing boundaries you wish to stop at consent, And I wish to stop at "man and women. " The reason this definition was changed, In America anyways, Was because of the majority. So the definition of American marriage was elected by the people (by my understanding, Please correct me if I am wrong) therefore the definition that you brought up was elected by the people, And I may add that people are wrong some times. If I may bring back the "chips" analogy. Just because the people wish for the law to be changed so that the term "corn chips" can incorporate "apple chips" doesn't necessarily mean that "corn chips" are "apple chips. " ( Honestly I will never think of chips the same way again. . . ) I do understand that gay parents who choose to adopt, I'm sure, Are good parents and as I stated in the first round, I believe that loving adoptive gay parents are definitely better than none. Although I am against the use of a third party to biologically produce children, But that's an argument for another time. Just to clarify, This is about Americas laws right? I do have to admit that personally I am not American, But I understand that this is an American website. The laws about American same sex marriage were changed three years ago, And it may not have dinted the American education system. . . But many other countries (such as Australia) that were influenced into following with the change in these laws are not coping the same way. The influence that these new laws have on America may not be extreme, But the impact on other countries are. As I did talk about in the last round, Australia's education system is being changed to incorporate mandatory education, Not even about same sex marriage essentially, But on things like "gender theory. " I do suggest that you look into this, It is actually quite fascinating what some governments want to teach children. Same sex marriage laws don't just affect people nationally, But rather internationally as well. You also mentioned that "seperate but equal is not equal. " I, Like I'm sure many people who are reading this, Greatly disagree with this statement. Are you implying that everyone should be the 'same' to be treated equally? I would make the case that males and females are different, But should be treated equally. I would say that African Americans and White Americans don't have to be the same to be treated equally either. If your making the case that no one who is seperate can be related equally than what do you say about the Paralympics compared to the Olympics? My true objection to "same sex marriage" is the changing of the word marriage. Homosexual couples can have all the financial benefits of marriage, Have a wedding, Adopt children, I have no objection to that. The definition of marriage just should not be changed/should be reverted back to the original definition. The reason being this simple: would you think it's just to allow non-Americans to celebrate the Fourth of July as theirIndependence Day? Would you think it's just to allow non-Australians to celebrate Australia Day? Would you believe it is just to allow unhandicapped people to compete in the Paralympics? Do you think it's just to give woman the right to go into the men's toilets? Difference is good, And we should respect and admire that instead of pushing for definitions to encompass everything, Degrading and devaluing diversity. There is no reason why a homosexual union is any less than a heterosexual marriage, As long as they they're not denied access to the same civil, Legal, And financial services or "disadvantaged" in anyway from heterosexual marriage. We should stop endlessly broadening definition of words to cover everything. Difference always rules over sameness. At what point does a mechanic get to call himself a "car doctor. " I think no less of same sex couples, Rather that their uniqueness should be respected for what it is, Instead of what society says it should be.