02-20-2004, 03:15 AM
Ok.
A man and a woman become a union under the eyes of the law. A man and a man become a union under the eyes of the law. A woman and a woman become a union under the eyes of the law.
All three of those are the same thing if all three of those things are considered marriages.
The arguement, then, is that there should not be two terms to describe a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage, because that is discriminatory.
A man and a woman become a union under the eyes of the law. A man and a man become a union under the eyes of the law. A woman and a woman become a union under the eyes of the law.
All three of those are the same thing if all three of those things are considered marriages.
The arguement, then, is that there should not be two terms to describe a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage, because that is discriminatory.