Prop 8 to pass?

[Rhyfelwyr]

I wish this really, really, Bush-level bad argument would be retired by the opponents of gay marriage already. It's utterly ridiculous.

No because the gay rights activists refuse to acknowledge what MARRIAGE is - a contract between one man and one woman. Anything else, by any stretch of the imagination, does not = marriage.

If you want a contract between two men as 'life partners', then you can never make it a true marriage.

Also what of those who do not want any form of life partner? Why are they discriminated against?

The answer to solving the problem of who's going to make decisions for you when your in a hospital bed cannot be solved simply by giving those powers to whoever you happen to be sexually attracted to, because that will not cover everyone.

So, if gay marriage:

a) is not in fact a marriage in the true meaning of the word
b) does not end discrimination but rather only very marginally extends the franchise as it were

Then it is clearly not an ideal solution.

[Koga No Goshi]

No because the gay rights activists refuse to acknowledge what MARRIAGE is - a contract between one man and one woman. Anything else, by any stretch of the imagination, does not = marriage.

If you want a contract between two men as 'life partners', then you can never make it a true marriage.

Also what of those who do not want any form of life partner? Why are they discriminated against?

Alright, you want to give up all the tax benefits you will receive when you marry, and later, when you have children? And relinquish all your inheritance, property, insurance and medical decisionmaking rights? Somehow I think all of these arguments of convenience that marriage should be defined by religious tradition and not by law would force a lot of people to change their tune if it were applied to deconstructing heterosexual, legal marriage in western countries.

The answer to solving the problem of who's going to make decisions for you when your in a hospital bed cannot be solved simply by giving those powers to whoever you happen to be sexually attracted to, because that will not cover everyone.

You think that gay marriage just lets any male make a medical decision for any other male? This was a really dumb point.

So, if gay marriage:

a) is not in fact a marriage in the true meaning of the word
b) does not end discrimination but rather only very marginally extends the franchise as it were

Then it is clearly not an ideal solution.

a) This is not a semantic debate about what should go in the dictionary. This is a legal battle over legal rights. Try to ingest that point because all the supporters of yes on 8 have repeatedly failed to do so and gone off on tangents about the traditional understanding of marriage as a cultural or religious concept. We're talking about a legal entity.

b) That is what civil rights movements are all about, spreading existing rights so that they equally apply to everyone.

[Koga No Goshi]

The constitution never states marriage. Its my understanding that they are interpreting the word happiness to include gay marriage and IMO that is very much a stretch and how I feel about the issue shouldn't come into play. A referendum was the thing to do.

Your understanding is flawed in this case. The Constitution doesn't say everyone has to drink from the same water fountains or attend the same schools either, but state-passed laws saying that water fountains and schools are only for certain races is unconstitutional nonetheless. Which was determined FIRST by courts, and only later by legislation.

Something doesn't have to be specifically delineated in the Constitution for a Constitutional violation to occur when a law is passed on that topic. I'm sure the Constitution does not specifically say anything about how it's not okay to murder Texans in California, but a law saying it is okay to do so in California would be unconstitutional, and stricken down by the courts. And that would be the judicial system working perfectly - though some would call it legislating from the bench.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Alright, you want to give up all the tax benefits you will receive when you marry, and later, when you have children? And relinquish all your inheritance, property, insurance and medical decisionmaking rights? Somehow I think all of these arguments of convenience that marriage should be defined by religious tradition and not by law would force a lot of people to change their tune if it were applied to deconstructing heterosexual, legal marriage in western countries.

No, all the things you listed are required. But why should they be granted to those with a fetish over those who choose not to enter into sexual partnerships?

You think that gay marriage just lets any male make a medical decision for any other male? This was a really dumb point.

I'm sure it means more than that to them, but the government should not encourage perversions (you do acknowledge that's what it is?). It would mean a lot to TuffStuff if he could marry his toaster - but they just won't let him.

a) This is not a semantic debate about what should go in the dictionary. This is a legal battle over legal rights. Try to ingest that point because all the supporters of yes on 8 have repeatedly failed to do so and gone off on tangents about the traditional understanding of marriage as a cultural or religious concept. We're talking about a legal entity.

b) That is what civil rights movements are all about, spreading existing rights so that they equally apply to everyone.

a) Well unfortunately that legal entity is based on the traditional idea of marriage. And homosexuals should stop referring to it as 'gay marriage' if they wish to be taken seriously.

b) The constant comparisons to the civil rights movement is an insult to the suffering and prejudice that black people endured. Gays have the same rights as everyone else as far as I can see. Why should they get to invent new institutions for themselves (because if you recongize its not marriage then that's what they would be doing)?

[Strike For The South]

Your understanding is flawed in this case. The Constitution doesn't say everyone has to drink from the same water fountains or attend the same schools either, but state-passed laws saying that water fountains and schools are only for certain races is unconstitutional nonetheless. Which was determined FIRST by courts, and only later by legislation.

Something doesn't have to be specifically delineated in the Constitution for a Constitutional violation to occur when a law is passed on that topic. I'm sure the Constitution does not specifically say anything about how it's not okay to murder Texans in California, but a law saying it is okay to do so in California would be unconstitutional, and stricken down by the courts. And that would be the judicial system working perfectly - though some would call it legislating from the bench.

Comparing this to civil rights is a rather erroneous comparison and if the movement continues down this road it will only inflict more deafeats on itself.

Well considering murder is kind of an affornt to the pursuit of life as stated in the California constitution

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

The court would be within there rights as that is explicitly stated. There is nothing about marriage therefore this should've gone to the legislature. It didnt because the gays saw an opportunity to get it done through the courts because they knew they would take a VERY liberal view on the word happiness. Now its biting them. So poo on them for being dumb and not appealing to the mainstream.

[Goofball]

Only one answer to this.

Ban ALL marriage. The state has no place in religious matters. Marriage is a religious union of a couple. Civil Union is a contractual agreement between two parties.

All couples should first get married by their respective religious authority and then apply for a civil union. This can be same sex or opposite sex.

It solves the matter for everyone!

I would vote for that and I voted Yes on 8.

I'm in. Where's the petition? I'll sign right now.

[Koga No Goshi]

No, all the things you listed are required. But why should they be granted to those with a fetish over those who choose not to enter into sexual partnerships?

Why should clearly inferior black people get rights equal to whites? :SHRUG:

I'm sure it means more than that to them, but the government should not encourage perversions (you do acknowledge that's what it is?). It would mean a lot to TuffStuff if he could marry his toaster - but they just won't let him.

And you guys wonder why the term "bigotry" comes up regarding the opposition to gay marriage crowd?

a) Well unfortunately that legal entity is based on the traditional idea of marriage. And homosexuals should stop referring to it as 'gay marriage' if they wish to be taken seriously.

b) The constant comparisons to the civil rights movement is an insult to the suffering and prejudice that black people endured. Gays have the same rights as everyone else as far as I can see. Why should they get to invent new institutions for themselves (because if you recongize its not marriage then that's what they would be doing)?

a) I am fairly confident that homosexuals do not need your approval in order to pursue their equal civil rights, nor do I think this issue will go away until people who consider them nothing more than perversion fettishists "take them seriously."

b) Oh please.

I'm a white guy in South Carolina in 1962. I don't see what this big hubbub is about interracial marriage. I mean, it ain't natural anyway. But some folks wanna do it. But we got laws against that sort of thing. Marriage is for white and white, or black on black... stick to your own kind. I mean, all these protests-- what's the big deal? There ain't no unfairness. A black person can't marry a white person, but I'm a white guy, I can't go marry a black person either. There's nothing unequal about the law.

And, Rhyfe, "gays have the same rights as everyone else as far as I can see" loses any of its potential benefit of the doubt when you refer to gay people as perversion fettishists. Besides, aren't you in the UK? Have you ever resided and lived in the United States? Or California? I don't really see what call, whatsoever, you would have to make that kind of an assessment. Your opposition to recognized gay rights in any form, in any locale, seems to be motivated by religious conviction of the "immorality" of homosexuality, period.

[Koga No Goshi]

Comparing this to civil rights is a rather erroneous comparison and if the movement continues down this road it will only inflict more deafeats on itself.

Well considering murder is kind of an affornt to the pursuit of life as stated in the California constitution

I have no idea why this is an erroneous comparison. Back in the 50's and 60's a lot of people considered blacks less than full white humans. Today a lot of people think gay people are just perverts and their right to form families and access legal rights which protect families should not be legally recognized. I fail to see the difference.

The court would be within there rights as that is explicitly stated. There is nothing about marriage therefore this should've gone to the legislature. It didnt because the gays saw an opportunity to get it done through the courts because they knew they would take a VERY liberal view on the word happiness. Now its biting them. So poo on them for being dumb and not appealing to the mainstream.

There is nothing explicitly stated in the Constitution about water fountains. However, the Constitution DOES include language about equal protections of all U.S. citizens, and equal rights. So courts rule this kind of business unconstitutional. The same rulings ... the "good rulings" that even you guys would agree with today, growing up after the history of formalized segregation, you would and do call "judicial overreaching" if applied today overturning voter-passed legislation.

[Koga No Goshi]

I'm in. Where's the petition? I'll sign right now.

Somehow the Knights of Columbus and other religious organizations which spent tens of millions to write a ban on gay marriage in California have failed to yet produce a similar bill to get rid of legal marriage altogether. Funny...

[ICantSpellDawg]

There is nothing explicitly stated in the Constitution about water fountains. However, the Constitution DOES include language about equal protections of all U.S. citizens, and equal rights. So courts rule this kind of business unconstitutional. The same rulings ... the "good rulings" that even you guys would agree with today, growing up after the history of formalized segregation, you would and do call "judicial overreaching" if applied today overturning voter-passed legislation.

Off-topic

Do you believe that the Supreme Court should mandate paternity leave for husbands and boyfriends of pregnant women in the same way that they mandate it for the pregnant women? Using constitutional equal rights protection, of course.

I really don't understand why we need a legislature or referendums at all.

[Koga No Goshi]

Off-topic

Do you believe that the Supreme Court should mandate paternity leave for husbands and boyfriends of pregnant women in the same way that they mandate it for the pregnant women? Using constitutional equal rights protection, of course.

I really don't understand why we need a legislature or referendums at all.

Maternity leave is MANDATED? If there is a law saying women cannot work during a certain point in the pregnancy I'm unaware of it. If you mean, should states have to ALLOW paternity leave or some form of time-off flexibility for fathers (doctors visits for wife, prenatal care appointments, and time after the baby is born) much of the first world already has this in law and certainly if a man was terminated from his job for reasonable absence related to having a new baby (taking the wife to important doctor's visits, helping with the care after birth, etc.), I believe he does and should have a case in court.

But in regards to the second comment-- I'm not 100% sure this is what you meant, but... if what you mean is, it's "funny" how attempts to ban or restrict rights (things like Prop 187, Prop 8) always go to state ballot/referendum, and attempts to have rights recognized or discriminatory laws challenged goes to the courts, I don't think it's a coincidence. It's not difficult to have already existing prejudices or discriminatory practices upheld in a general, straight majority public vote. The courts, by virtue of not depending on popular vote, have both the leeway as well as the obligation to examine the issue within the greater context of Constitutionality and legally logical reasoning which of course, is not required and largely not a component of much of the public vote. The yes on 8 ads were proof enough of that... a lot of them didn't even touch the issue directly at all, and just told parents their kids would be "taught gay marriage" if they didn't vote yes.

A voter making a call on oh I dunno... let's say a law about redlining, based on seeing a commercial with black kids hitting on white girls in high school, is something that has happened/does happen in our democratic process --- one would hope judges and the court system are not making their rulings based on the same mindset, though.

[HoreTore]

No because the gay rights activists refuse to acknowledge what MARRIAGE is - a contract between one man and one woman. Anything else, by any stretch of the imagination, does not = marriage.

Nope, sorry. That's in your religion. Outside of it, we deem marriage to be a contract between two people irrespective of gender. And since religion is separate from the state, you have no say whatsoever

Marriage has nothing to do with religion - stop hijacking it. perhaps it did 500 years ago, but that doesn't have anything to do with the here and now. We decide for ourselves what our words mean, thankyouverymuch. I have no need for some religious figure to tell me what the words I say mean. I define them myself.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Nope, sorry. That's in your religion. Outside of it, we deem marriage to be a contract between two people irrespective of gender. And since religion is separate from the state, you have no say whatsoever

Marriage has nothing to do with religion - stop hijacking it. perhaps it did 500 years ago, but that doesn't have anything to do with the here and now. We decide for ourselves what our words mean, thankyouverymuch. I have no need for some religious figure to tell me what the words I say mean. I define them myself.

It also happens to be how it is defined in just about every major religion, and every society that has the concept of marriage (so that's pretty much every society).

As a Lutheran country I presume Norway did not traditionally allow same-sex marriages. And I doubt they were allowed when Norway was Catholic for the whole medieval period, or in the Viking-era before that (although I'm not sure on the last one).

So if you want to accept same-sex "marriages" then you are really making up your own concept, its nothing to do with marriage. You can never change what marriage has always been for the past thousands of years.

[Whacker]

Yep, so I'm pretty much seeing exactly what I've come to expect from the dear old Backroom, rampant homophobia. It's precious how people use religion to try to lend legitimacy to prejudice. Hey, christian types, got a question for ya'll. The bible condones both polygamy and slavery as well, what say we make those legal as well?

Nope, sorry. That's in your religion. Outside of it, we deem marriage to be a contract between two people irrespective of gender. And since religion is separate from the state, you have no say whatsoever

Marriage has nothing to do with religion - stop hijacking it. perhaps it did 500 years ago, but that doesn't have anything to do with the here and now. We decide for ourselves what our words mean, thankyouverymuch. I have no need for some religious figure to tell me what the words I say mean. I define them myself.

Oh FFS, am I really going to say this? I agree 100% with the dirty commie for once.

So if you want to accept same-sex "marriages" then you are really making up your own concept, its nothing to do with marriage. You can never change what marriage has always been for the past thousands of years.

You just keep your eyes closed, ears covered, and keep chanting that to yourself.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

As I had posted in another thread, and as stated by Div above, the most appropriate response is to remove government from marriage entirely.

All citizens seeking "marriage" rights with one another should enter into the appropriate civil union. Those who believe marriage is a sacrament can supplement that with some form of religious ceremony. Government can still charge its fee for the unions, so taxation has been preserved.


EDIT:

I feel sorry for those who are sexually "inverted." Thier real quest is not equality under the law or even non-discrimination (though these are worthy goals for anyone and gays among other groups will continue to pursue them). They want to be considered "normal." The raw tide of numbers among the herd of humanity makes this impossible. As do those among us who are dwarves or those who are well over 2m in height, they do not fit with the mainstream. No amount of social engineering can remake this fact. Sad, really, since learning to become "comfortable in your own skin" is a difficult enough project for those of us in that mainstream -- it must be horrifyingly difficult with extra stuff stacked against you.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Maternity leave is MANDATED? If there is a law saying women cannot work during a certain point in the pregnancy I'm unaware of it. If you mean, should states have to ALLOW paternity leave or some form of time-off flexibility for fathers (doctors visits for wife, prenatal care appointments, and time after the baby is born) much of the first world already has this in law and certainly if a man was terminated from his job for reasonable absence related to having a new baby (taking the wife to important doctor's visits, helping with the care after birth, etc.), I believe he does and should have a case in court.

But in regards to the second comment-- I'm not 100% sure this is what you meant, but... if what you mean is, it's "funny" how attempts to ban or restrict rights (things like Prop 187, Prop 8) always go to state ballot/referendum, and attempts to have rights recognized or discriminatory laws challenged goes to the courts, I don't think it's a coincidence. It's not difficult to have already existing prejudices or discriminatory practices upheld in a general, straight majority public vote. The courts, by virtue of not depending on popular vote, have both the leeway as well as the obligation to examine the issue within the greater context of Constitutionality and legally logical reasoning which of course, is not required and largely not a component of much of the public vote. The yes on 8 ads were proof enough of that... a lot of them didn't even touch the issue directly at all, and just told parents their kids would be "taught gay marriage" if they didn't vote yes.

A voter making a call on oh I dunno... let's say a law about redlining, based on seeing a commercial with black kids hitting on white girls in high school, is something that has happened/does happen in our democratic process --- one would hope judges and the court system are not making their rulings based on the same mindset, though.

I'm sorry - I meant mandated on the companies.

http://pregnancy.lovetoknow.com/wiki...aternity_Leave

My point is that the maternity leave can be split, but more reasonably it should be more available to pregnant women. My point is that women have a special right that makes sense due to their sex. It is a separate right and I wouldn't push for men to have it. I find it similar to the right that women have to marry only men, and men have the right to marry women.

Your exceptions to that don't need to happen within the same institution and are covered in civil unions in your state.

The point is that separate rights based on sex are sometimes sensible and based on the sheer biology. Maternity leave and marriage are examples of those. If you want to get rid of or modify marriage as policy take it to the legislature.

[Strike For The South]

Yep, so I'm pretty much seeing exactly what I've come to expect from the dear old Backroom, rampant homophobia. It's precious how people use religion to try to lend legitimacy to prejudice. Hey, christian types, got a question for ya'll. The bible condones both polygamy and slavery as well, what say we make those legal as well?.

This is why nothing ever gets done in American politics.

[m52nickerson]

As I had posted in another thread, and as stated by Div above, the most appropriate response is to remove government from marriage entirely.

All citizens seeking "marriage" rights with one another should enter into the appropriate civil union. Those who believe marriage is a sacrament can supplement that with some form of religious ceremony. Government can still charge its fee for the unions, so taxation has been preserved.

I will go with this. The goal is equality for all unions, or marriages, depending on how the government labels them.

[ICantSpellDawg]

This is why nothing ever gets done in American politics.

That is ridiculous. Nobody here is afraid of gay people. I just don't want people to exchange good policy that I believe is important for bad policy that I believe will render that important institution absurd. If you must do it, please make a case and win legislation instead of try to strongarn new policy without the consent of the people within your State. This is an issue of a small group of people making things up in the constitution and radically redefining how our governments work.

I'm a homophobic jerk because I believe in people having a right to put a stamp of approval over policy and institutions that govern them when they are important enough?

[ICantSpellDawg]

I will go with this.

Sure - I think that this would get more people on board BUT we should bring it to the legislature and try to convince people.

If the American people no longer believe that the government should have an interest in propagation or interpersonal relationships, we should change the existing policy. I'm not opposed to taking the government out of what we should or shouldn't be doing (when it doesn't involve homicide or other forms of aggressive tyranny) but we need to discuss it and change it by legislative action.

[Strike For The South]

That is ridiculous. Nobody here is afraid of gay people. I just don't want people to exchange good policy that I believe is important for bad policy that I believe will render that important institution absurd. If you must do it, please make a case and win legislation instead of try to strongarn new policy without the consent of the people within your State. This is an issue of a small group of people making things up in the constitution and radically redefining how our governments work.

I'm a homophobic jerk because I believe in people having a right to put a stamp of approval over policy and institutions that govern them when they are important enough?

I agree with you Tuff. I quoted Whacker because he is unfairly painting his opposition as foaming at the mouth homophobes basing there decision on the bible. Its a craze in American politics to paint the other side as the bad guy who has ulterior motives rather than someone who has a different opinion because that wouldn't be sensationalist enough. My opponent needs to want to destroy America.

We fought the Russians for to long.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I agree with you Tuff. I quoted Whacker because he is unfairly painting his opposition as foaming at the mouth homophobes basing there decision on the bible. Its a craze in American politics to paint the other side as the bad guy who has ulterior motives rather than someone who has a different opinion because that wouldn't be sensationalist enough. My opponent needs to want to destroy America.

We fought the Russians for to long.

Oh, okay. We fought the Nazis followed by the Russians. Double whammy.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I feel sorry for those who are sexually "inverted." Thier real quest is not equality under the law or even non-discrimination (though these are worthy goals for anyone and gays among other groups will continue to pursue them). They want to be considered "normal." The raw tide of numbers among the herd of humanity makes this impossible. As do those among us who are dwarves or those who are well over 2m in height, they do not fit with the mainstream. No amount of social engineering can remake this fact. Sad, really, since learning to become "comfortable in your own skin" is a difficult enough project for those of us in that mainstream -- it must be horrifyingly difficult with extra stuff stacked against you.

You're being far too pessimistic here Seamus...

[Whacker]

I quoted Whacker because he is unfairly painting his opposition as foaming at the mouth homophobes basing there decision on the bible.

The foaming at the mouth part is over-exaggeration on your part. But you are a homophobe based on your previous statements, and you are trying to justify it through your religious views. There is nothing "sacred" about marriage. There is no difference between marriage, civil unions, whatever name you want to call it, all the same thing. As Horetore pointed out, marriage hasn't been about religion for centuries. It is about a desire for companionship and support, and for making a family. Oh wait, I guess that since clearly gay and lesbian couples can't naturally have kids just shoots that all out the window. And to think that I once thought like that too...

[Strike For The South]

The foaming at the mouth part is over-exaggeration on your part. But you are a homophobe based on your previous statements, and you are trying to justify it through your religious views. There is nothing "sacred" about marriage. There is no difference between marriage, civil unions, whatever name you want to call it, all the same thing. As Horetore pointed out, marriage hasn't been about religion for centuries. It is about a desire for companionship and support, and for making a family. Oh wait, I guess that since clearly gay and lesbian couples can't naturally have kids just shoots that all out the window. And to think that I once thought like that too...

I am against prop 8 for reasons I have stated above. I have not mentioned the bible nor will I to try and prove my point. You are fighting the wrong battle.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The foaming at the mouth part is over-exaggeration on your part. But you are a homophobe based on your previous statements, and you are trying to justify it through your religious views. There is nothing "sacred" about marriage. There is no difference between marriage, civil unions, whatever name you want to call it, all the same thing. As Horetore pointed out, marriage hasn't been about religion for centuries. It is about a desire for companionship and support, and for making a family. Oh wait, I guess that since clearly gay and lesbian couples can't naturally have kids just shoots that all out the window. And to think that I once thought like that too...

Sounds like foaming at the mouth to me.

[HoreTore]

It also happens to be how it is defined in just about every major religion, and every society that has the concept of marriage (so that's pretty much every society).

As a Lutheran country I presume Norway did not traditionally allow same-sex marriages. And I doubt they were allowed when Norway was Catholic for the whole medieval period, or in the Viking-era before that (although I'm not sure on the last one).

So if you want to accept same-sex "marriages" then you are really making up your own concept, its nothing to do with marriage. You can never change what marriage has always been for the past thousands of years.

BAH!

What marriage was in the past has absolutely nothing to do with what it can be in the future. That's like saying we shouldn't use oil in cars because we used to use them only for lamps.

Neither does it matter what "every religion" say about it, simply because religion, thankfully, has no say in government. Separation of church and state FTW.

[Incongruous]

The foaming at the mouth part is over-exaggeration on your part. But you are a homophobe based on your previous statements, and you are trying to justify it through your religious views. There is nothing "sacred" about marriage. There is no difference between marriage, civil unions, whatever name you want to call it, all the same thing. As Horetore pointed out, marriage hasn't been about religion for centuries. It is about a desire for companionship and support, and for making a family. Oh wait, I guess that since clearly gay and lesbian couples can't naturally have kids just shoots that all out the window. And to think that I once thought like that too...

You are being absurd and fantastical, and you know it.

Strike has only supported his views in a constitutional manner, out of a sincere belief in his Republic, not God. You are being unfair and unwise in my opinion, most probably in fact as well. You and your movement will only alianate more and more people when you treat them like you have Strike. You are putting the bullet to your brain, quite willingly. You don't need to blame those religious idiots, just blamne your own self righteous crap.

[Rhyfelwyr]

What marriage was in the past has absolutely nothing to do with what it can be in the future. That's like saying we shouldn't use oil in cars because we used to use them only for lamps.

Notice how we call them "cars", not "lamps". Same-sex partnerships cannot be a marriage, they are something completely different and should be acknowledged as such, just as cars are different to lamps.

[Koga No Goshi]

As I had posted in another thread, and as stated by Div above, the most appropriate response is to remove government from marriage entirely.

All citizens seeking "marriage" rights with one another should enter into the appropriate civil union. Those who believe marriage is a sacrament can supplement that with some form of religious ceremony. Government can still charge its fee for the unions, so taxation has been preserved.


EDIT:

I feel sorry for those who are sexually "inverted." Thier real quest is not equality under the law or even non-discrimination (though these are worthy goals for anyone and gays among other groups will continue to pursue them). They want to be considered "normal." The raw tide of numbers among the herd of humanity makes this impossible. As do those among us who are dwarves or those who are well over 2m in height, they do not fit with the mainstream. No amount of social engineering can remake this fact. Sad, really, since learning to become "comfortable in your own skin" is a difficult enough project for those of us in that mainstream -- it must be horrifyingly difficult with extra stuff stacked against you.

I disagree. Legal rights should be equally accessible to everyone (with the caveat that their acts do not demonstrably harm others or society in general- so this would cover the slippery slope arguments like marrying animals or marrying 11 year olds) regardless of how, socially, a particular lifestyle is perceived by the mainstream in terms of "normal" or "alternative/not normal." Besides, there will always be people who define normal as merely what a majority does, and nothing else. And still others who think normal is what they do, and not anyone else.