My statement was the logical progression from the argument that was attempted from "the other side". Its sole purpose was to illustrate how rediculous their argument was. It was intended to be rediculous. It was intended to be real-world stupid. It was NOT intended to be a reasonable position. It was illustration of the foolishness of someone elses stated position. Do you understand now, or do I need to try and rewrite this post in words of 4 letters or less?

To recap: Their position,was that there was no reason to not allow it, therefore it should be allowed. There is also no reason not to allow me to marry a spoon. or a corporationor my own adult offspring or 3,567,983,987 other adult people.

I've said it before, it is not a civil rights issue, it is not an equal protections issue. It is not a Constitutional issue AT ALL. It is an issue where a minortiy portion of our population wants the majority to grant them a new legal status that is comparable to one that the majority enjoys, but that the minority CHOOSES not to participate in; even though they have the exact same access to it.