Also, there are laws and programs based on factors of birth (race/sex) anyway, as far as I know. I see no problem in telling anyone that they cannot marry bc their bond is not one of a man and a woman, and that they must use another word for their bond. For the life of me I don't see what is so "offensive" about that.
Actually, there aren't. You cannot write a law that applies to one gender but not to another. You cannot write a law that applies to one race and not another.
There are a list of things about which you cannot discriminate in laws. Race, gender, religion... uh, I think other non-religious beliefs are on the list.
There is nothing more productive about two white people reproducing than any other pair of heterosexuals, so I don't see your logic here.
Actually, that's not necessarily true. There are whole lists of genetic diseases that are more likely in people of African (the continent, not the race) descent than people of western european descent.
More importantly, we simply don't know if there are biological advantages to offspring produced from people of similar racial origin or not. There might be.
What we do know is that we evolved that way in nature before sentience was developed, therefore, it must have been beneficial at some point, right?
And we know that some genetic stocks are more predisposed to intelligenec or physical prowess, so maybe we shouldn't allow marriages between people who have genetic diseases or who are dumb?
Because their offspring is less viable and beneficial than others?
You seem to imply that my scenario is unlaw-like because it follows some moral law instead of something logical or technical. In my opinion, however, it is very logical and technical and not about morality, spirituality, or the loaded meaning of the word "special". As a trait, heterosexuals reproduce.
Even if it follows a logical or technical law, that doesn't matter.
Like you could argue that a law based around eugenics is logical. You could argue that weeding out the dump and the weak is beneficial, logically. You can argue that freedom of speech makes the world more dangerous and that a government based on an enlightened dictatorship would be the most beneficial to our contry.
You can make a ton of "logical" arguments that go against the concept of human rights and freedom that this country is based on.
Just because the argument is "logcal" doesn't make it "a good basis for law."
Again, I am not opposed to the PEOPLE calling gay marriage whatever they want. But the LAW cannot distinguish.
