So you don't consider the relationships to be the same. I understand. No single relationship is the same as the next. Considering that no relationship is the same, I think our governement is better off treating them all the same then trying to differentiate between them. It is the differentiation that causes many to change their understanding of difference to one of superiority. "You're in a union and I'm in a marriage. Mine's better."

That is how people act. So instead of that, if we call it all the same and treat it the same in terms of legal action then we eliminate that. We shouldn't have marriage under the law, we should have unions. Let the church determine who is 'married'.

Leaving aside your childish little jibes - if you agree that a relationship between two homosexuals is NOT the same as a relationship between an opposite sex couple, why on earth should they be regarded as the same legally??

You just unravelled your own implausible argument!

Under the US Constitution rights accrue to INDIVIDUALS not to couples, triples, teams, platoons, neighbourhoods or any other grouping.

Homosexuals have the same right to marry as anyone else. If you feel it's not for you, or if you don't qualify for marriage for whatever reason, then nobody is forcing you to do anything - you have a right to stay single too.

Can we please just stop the insults? This subject is getting worn out,and it's obvious we all have our own views on it, and none of us are going to change our views.

When "marriage" is based on man and woman for the reasons I have given, why should the government ask if they plan to actually procreate?

A union is assumed that both people are alive, but they don't take vital signs at the door. Some laws are based on assumed "normal" situations. When a car is allowed to travel the highway, it is assumed it is safe. But there is no one at the end of your driveway checking your brakes.

Even "free speech" assumes that you know what is acceptable and normal to be said in the company of people. We all know it is not "normal" for a person to run around shouting expletives all day. But we all have the right to free speech.

It is not "normal" for person to want to marry his/her own gender. That is not a normal human trait, just as it is not normal, for a person to run around yelling expletives. Just because the law doesn't ask a person if they are going to procreate, that is an individual decision, the law is based on any man and any woman, otherwise known as heterosexuality. And the heterosexual union alone has the "normal" capability to bear "fruit", whether an individual couple decides to do so is up to them. But the legal recognition of the "normal" union should be separate from the legal recognition of the homosexual one which is not yet proven to be any more a "normal" and intended human situation than any of the "other" unions that some humans have the tendency to attempt.

So until you try to "sell" me the equality BS as if homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality is any way other than number of participants, you are gonna have to first "sell" to me "why" I am supposed separate it from the other "orientations". Because to me and most others of our species, homosexuality has no unique qualities as heterosexuality does. And THAT is why that discussion belongs in a "marriage" discussion. Although I didn't see any mention of marriage in your beginning post.

But to keep with the original post in this thread...I will address it since you seem to have a liberal view on what is homophobic. Since the definition you in the medical dictionary included the word irrational and fear, and the medical suffix "phobia" also includes irrational and fear
MedlinePlus: Phobias
It is a strong, irrational fear of something that poses little or no actual danger
I fail to see where someone who simply feels the homosexual union should not be called a "marriage" qualifies as homophobic. Could you please enlighten me where it is "irrational" to point out the irrefutable truth that homosexuality shares many traits with other sexually deviant "orientations" and very few if any natural qualities that separate them? Could you please enlighten me on how "fear" describes the irrefutable fact that "marriage", while having many iterations throughout the ages, has never included same sex unions. It seems to have ALWAYS been a separate institution in societies that tolerated it at all.

I'll wait patiently for your enlightening rebuttal.

It seems the pointless insults originate from one particular person....Many of us are quite capable of communicating without profanity and childish name calling.

well, yes they do, as you are required to sign a license application

to the best of my knowledge, the deceased don't write that well

no - I don't have to "sell" you anything

that would be considered discussing an issue with you - which you know I have no intention of doing

What I meant was that the debate itself has been lost in the constant insulting of each others.As ong as there are at least two people left on earth; there will be disagreement. But when we disagree in more civil ways than we have seen here lately, it keeps these disagreements from turning into much worse. It's okay for one to transition from thier earlier views on any topic. Good debate and the civil exchange of ideas and viewpoints will always produce this. But if we must insult others to try to get our point across, all we can expect is more insults in return, and the further impossibility for the two parties to remain civil. At that point agreement is now a pipe dream.