Sure, neither one of us is allowed to marry a man, while women are allowed to marry a man. That's still discrimination. The difference between us is that you have no reason to be unhappy with it, while I have every reason to be unhappy with it. A single straight male still has the option of happily and honestly attracting a female spouse. It doesn't change that it is discrimination; it does change that, while you aren't a potential plaintiff because there's no possibility of real damages in your case, in my case I am and there are.



First, unmarried people cannot jointly adopt. And so when I die, the children get taken away from my spouse and given to a more distant relative or put into foster care. Second, it shouldn't be the agency's prerogative to make such decisions just because you want to have your cake and eat it to. You can't have marriage both as an objective term that applies the same when I adopt as when a straight couple adopt and claim that it is a personal religious term in which you shouldn't have to bend to my own opinion. If it is objectively defined, then I do have as much right as you to influence how we determine what that definition is. If it is personal, related to your religious views, then you should keep it to your personal religion and butt out of the argument when it affects me but not you, e.g., in the case of adoption.



When the employer is the federal government, it is the business of everyone who is s citizen.

And you can't truly claim there is a biological necessity that the woman stay home and the man work: if it were, it would be impossible to find a counterexample to that, but it obviously isn't impossible. If it is a necessity at all that one of them stay home to raise their children, then it is no moreso a necessity than that either Adam or Steve stay home to raise their children.



Surely you would agree it shouldn't take a special arrangement for your spouse not to lose everything when you die or be forced to pay death taxes on all of it, and that your spouse should be assumed to have power of attorney? Especially since special arrangements can be contested? Even if you don't, and that you are right in that people who fail to craft a will for their spouse are stupid, it is yet unfair that heterosexual stupid people are given this special privelege over homosexual stupid people.




Once again, you are trying to say that marriage is both an objectively defined term and one which only you get to personally define through your religion. If it is objective, you don't get any say in it any more than I do; so you can't say I'm attacking your religion when I say you are wrong about what that definition is. If you are wrong, you are objectively wrong, and your religion gives you no special authority for saying whether you are or not. If, on the other hand, "marriage" is a religious term, defined by your religious culture, then you have no place telling me that things just are how they are. That is an objective statement. You don't get to have both.