[caspera]

Race is not by definition behavioral. Sexuality, generally speaking, is. And behavior is the basis upon which we all discriminate. You can only be on the baseball team if you play baseball. You can only be in the chess club if you play chess. You don't get to keep your job if you can't show up on time. No shirt, no shoes, no service, etc.

Note the differences among the following questions asked of a white, heterosexual woman:

"Can you imagine yourself marrying a Black man?"

"Can you imagine yourself marrying a short man?"

"Can you imagine yourself marrying an Asian man?"

"Can you imagine yourself marrying a gay man?"

One of these questions really is not like the others, except to maybe Liza Minelli.

Gays should be treated equally by the law, yes. The Texas law was useless and a waste of state resources. But a law that more usefully targets a specific behavior, say public sex in a public park, will have a disproportionate effect on groups (i.e. gays) that tend to engage in that behavior. Upon which result, the group in question claims discrimination and unequal treatment. This is quite exasperating.

And as far as marriage goes, it is tautologigally discriminatory. It discriminates against single people. That's the whole point. And I say this as a single person. If the institution of marriage cannot discriminate against gays, by what logic can its benefits be denied to single people? After all, single people ought to be treated equally by the law. That's all we're asking for! Marriage benefits for singles! If, of course, I get my way, marriage as an institution disappears entirely. A social institution that accepts all comers without discrimination cannot serve any useful social purpose.

Marriage as an institution is meant to protect women from the dark side of men. Men have a genetic incentive to impregnate as many women as possible, abandon menopausal women and court only nubile women. See Hollywood for this caveman principle in action. Women have a genetic incentive to domesticate a man, She can't hunt while she's pregnant, so her genes will more likely be passed on if the man helps her out with the pregnancy and the kids. The instiution of marriage formalizes the societal importance of favoring the woman's incentives. That's why marriage is a heterosexual institution. Marriage is meant to send a clear signal to a man: "think twice before walking away from your wife and kids, and we'll help you out if it gets a little rough." If all gay men walk away from their lovers, nothing much will happen to society. If all heterosexual men were to walk away from their women tomorrow, social chaos would ensue.

[johnb838]

If, of course, I get my way, marriage as an institution disappears entirely.

If they are going to extend marriage benefits to queers, I agree that they should just abolish it entirely under the law. After all, isn't it one of those religious customs that these evil bastards hate so much? Or alternatively, make marriage possible only if there are children. Actuall I think that is the only fair way to do it anyway. Although we get screwed on all the tax benes that people get "fur the chirren".