I apologize for the way I reacted in my previous post. Your explanation does make sense to me now, but it doesn't work all that well.
A homosexual person wouldn't marry another person of the different sex. There is no reason to, even for having kids (there is always adoption, sperm banks, and artificial insemination for that). If you don't have a sexual preference for the person yor marrying, than you don't seriously love that person. So reafirming what I said, a marriage to someone that is not at all of your sexual preference is useless and loveless. So its hard to say that the FMA is not discriminatory just by saying that homosexuals can still have loveless marriages of a sexual preference that is not theirs.
And although the amendment technically doesn't say or imply exactly "only heterosexuals can marry", it still won't allow homosexuals to marry the way the want, for a reason that I would still like to hear.
So this is how the FMA is discriminatory: Technically, everyone would still have the "same rights" because everyone (of all sexual preferences) could still marry another person of the other sex. But in reality, everyone would not have the same rights, because only straight people would be able to marry the people they want, while that homosexuals wouldn't be able to.
All right, I don't think you're a stupid person, in fact you seem very smart. With that in mind, how do you see a law that prohibits people attracted to the same sex from marrying the same sex as not being discriminatory. Homosexuals should be allowed to marry each other, as heterosexuals are allowed to marry each other. I don't care what marriage is traditionally viewed as, because I've already shown the flaws in following tradition. If men who are sexually attracted to men, or women who are sexually attracted to women, aren't allowed to marry those they are sexually attracted to they are being discriminated against. Once again, I fail to see how this isn't discrimination.
And exactly what is that gay people want from marriage that they could not have before other than legal burdens? Marriage is an institution meant to unify two people in order to create a solid and binding foundation in hopes that they start a stable and lasting/happy family in order to continue the lives we Americans love so much but take for granted so much that we've got the time to even contemplate the possibility of gays marrying each other.
Who cares, the idea is stupid, if they want it so much we should just give it to them. Is it just me or am I the only one that gets the feeling that all these gay people wanting to marry each other partly because they've been denied it? You know sort of like telling a determined teenager not drink before 21? (yeah yeah, I understand that some of them have the silly notion that they need it in order to properly declare their love for each other )
I think the basic idea is that a man has his own unique experiences in our society and a woman has her own unique experiences in our society, and, put together at the head of a household, they are both able to draw on their own and each other's personal resources to raise up their family in the way that they should go. No one can deny that guys have different characteristics than ladies, and that a boy or a girl growing up will always look for one of their parents as role-models. If they can't seem to bond to them (gender is a big part of bonding at a young age...heck, ANY age, if I look at my own life and the relationships I've made with people) then they will look elsewhere. And no, T.V. doesn't hold the answer :0P' "I love yooooou, you love meeeee, we're a crack-head fam-i-lyyyyy." hehe
Not sure if I made a point there, but weedle through that if anyone can and maybe something good can be extracted.
You did make a good point, BBD. Children do look to their parents as role models, and gender might make a difference here. I don't think it makes a significant difference to the point where a child is socially damaged or anything, but it is something logical.
...if they want it so much we should just give it to them.
That, I think, is a good way to look at it. Who cares whether you are pro-gay marriage or anti-gay marriage? You have the right to your own opinion. Its just the amendment which establishes only one point of view that I don't concur with, since the estblishment seriouskly affects the people with the other opinion.