Like what Americans went about systematically banning in 2004 and 2005 in their zeal to keep gay people from having anything like marriage?

Precisely. Secular marriage is not the same as marriage in the religious tradition. However, when people voice their objections to gay marriage in the secular sense, it is quite common for them to cite the role of religion. The idea that marriage is one all-encompassing term is a misconception.

Then please feel free to correct me.

Technically you may be right, but I bet if you conducted a poll asking people whether or not they viewed their legal marriages as a separate entity from their religious marriages, the overwhelming majority would consider them interconnected.

Reread what I said. It's pretty simple language. :wink:

Simple language and language spoken by a simple person are not quite the same. :wink:

They banned civil unions?

True. But this has nothing to do with you inferring things that are way off the mark. :wink:

In many cases, yes. Take a look at the amendment to Georgia's State Constitution.

There's a big subset of Americans that wants to keep gays from having rights anything like straight people do.

Which is a practice you seem to be quite familiar with. :wink:

I know you are...... :roll:

How is life out on the fringes? :lol: :lol: :lol:

I'll take your word on Georgia. How 'bout you offer up a few more of those "many cases" of civil unions being banned. :wink:

It's those extremeists who are driving the effort. Considering most Americans are against gay marriage, wouldn't it make more sense to make a concerted effort to obtain the legal benifits of marriage without stomping on the majoritiy's wishes.

How is life out on the fringes? :lol: :lol: :lol:

So the Georgia state legislature banned civil unions? What's the history of domestic partnership initiatives in the state legislature?

How 'bout you offer up a few more of those "many cases" of civil unions being banned. :wink:

Today's reply brief notes that similar initiatives have passed in other states and have subsequently been used to cause harm to same-sex couples. Michigan's Attorney General has claimed that the amendment passed there bans domestic partner health benefits for state employees. Similarly, a Utah court is being asked to decide if that state's amendment bars Salt Lake City from providing domestic partner health benefits to its lesbian and gay employees. An Ohio amendment has been used as basis to deny straight unmarried couples access to protections from the state's domestic violence laws.

Eleven states will have constitutional amendments on their ballots next Tuesday. Eight of the amendments seek to ban gay marriage, civil unions, domestic partnership and other legal arrangements for gay couples while four would only prohibit same-sex marriage.

Some people act so surprised when there's an unfavorable reaction to their actions...

And just to clarify something that you can't seem to get on your own, political endeavors by a minority group is not the same as lettting the most zealous extremists within a given group direct such endeavors.

... only the bisexuals amongst us would claim they exercise any conscious choice about their attractions.

What about homosexuality? Well, in simple biological terms, a condition which prevents an animal from reproducing could never be reasonably described as desirable or normal, for a large number of sound reasons.

There's a flaw in this argument since in many cases a great number of individuals of a population never take part in procreation.

we're not talking about an on/off switch for homosexuality (as your sick down syndrom comparison may suggest).

So what? In biological terms - not behavioural ones - it's still not a good idea to have a heritable trait which causes people not to procreate. In evolutionary and biological terms, it's counterproductive.

Down's exists in degrees too. Its effects are more severe in some than in others. But people with down's are quantificably down's or not, just as humans are quantifiably attracted to the same sex or not.

As I said before, your idea that comparing homosexuality to down's is "sick" only indicates that you think down's is wrong or bad in some way. I don't. You are the prejudiced one in this, not me.

So in evolutionary and biological terms, it's counterproductive for ants and bees to have workers who aren't able to procreate? Nope.

The sick about the comparison is that you well know what you provoke with it.

No. I put a particular note in my post to ensure that you understood what the root of any discomfort was. If you don't think down's syndrome is wrong or bad, then why do you object to homosexuality being compared to it? They are both biological conditions which are neither good or bad in my eyes. What do you see?

I see someone who on purpose brings in associations to deseases/defects into a discussion where those don't fit.

*Sigh*...labels, labels...

Well, I suppose there's always the option of applying for citizenship in Belgium.

This isn't about the personal opinions of Americans.

It's about the state's duty to uphold and enforce its laws. The supreme law of the land is the US Constitution, which overrules the Defense of Marriage Act and all aforementioned state amendments with the 14th Amendment. The only way to legally ban gay marriage would be to enact another amendment to the US Constitution, which (ironically) is something the majority of Americans do not support.

Agreed. So what prompted you to immediately declare my response as indicative of my own personal extremism?

They're both biological conditions. There are respects in which they are different, but in the relevant respects - that they're naturally occurring and that the person who has them has no choice, they are the same.

The simple fact is this: unlike worker bees, human beings are biologically intended to procreate. Therefore a biological condition which causes them to not procreate cannot be termed useful or normal.