It’s your argument that’s based on the “emotions”, if you will, of the general populace in this place/time encoded in the present law in this country.

This is the danger, as a poster mentioned above, of leaving the decisions of equality under the law to the "emotions" of the general populace. The "emotions" of the majority often marginalize and exclude the rights of the minority. The "emotional" feelings of the majority of the populace do not justify abridging the law as it concerns the minority. As I mentioned in my last posting- were it not for the decisions of the judiciary and the executive branches- blacks would still be eating in separate restaurants in parts of this country.

More to the point- you can dress up bigotry in as much fancy language as you like- as much faux legalese as you like- but it's still bigotry at the end of the day.

Your argument - That it is somehow "logical" that allowing gay marriage will cause people to marry animals- is not at all a logical argument. As I mentioned before, informed consent, between two consenting adults is not at all the same thing as someone "marrying" a dog.

Redefining the term “marriage” to suit one group’s preference logically opens the door to those with other preferences to demand the same.

Again, no it does not. The entire reason that California initially allowed gay marriage before Prop 8 overturned it, was solely due to equality under the law. The Supreme Court of California reviewed the definition of marriage vs. the definition of "Civil Union". Surprise! Civil Unions are granted less rights under the law than marriage. The ruling of the CA Supreme Court determined that marriage was the only way to allow full equality under the law.

Further: "The opinion, written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, cited the Court's 1948 decision in Perez v. Sharp where the state's interracial marriage ban was held unconstitutional. It found that "equal respect and dignity" of marriage is a "basic civil right" that cannot be withheld from same-sex couples, that sexual orientation is a protected class like race and gender, and that any classification or discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the California State Constitution."

I merely noted this in contrast to how the apparently constant male/female/human base requirement for marriage seems to set what MARRIAGE is, however else any society might restrict it.

Again, your argument seems to be: Because things have "always been this way" they cannot be changed. Again, I say, This is not a valid, legal argument for denying equal rights to American citizens.

I say treat your pets with equal affection, but don’t ask people to call your dog a cat. I say why fight your way over the mountain when you can get to the same place by taking the friendly road around it.

With your "pet" argument you are creating a false equivalence.

And attempting to equate a relationship between two consenting adults as trying to call a "cat" a "dog" is not only logically fallacious, it's insulting in the extreme.

Further, your admonition that gays and lesbians "take the friendly road" is condescending. This is the same basis upon which Segregationists based their "belief" that blacks should "know their place" and be happy with whatever whites chose to give them. Here's the thing- equality under the law is not based upon what a majority "chooses" to give a minority.

Simply by saying that gays and lesbians should take the "friendly road" , you are asserting that your beliefs are morally superior, when in fact they are used in an attempt to marginalize. And again, you prove my past point- that heterosexual "societal norms" in your view are paramount to legal equality for minorities. Your suggestion of the "friendly road" is nothing less than advocating for a Separate and unequal status for gays and lesbians and our relationships. Legally, that is unacceptable.

So, again, I go back to the closing of your original posting:

I think gay couples would be better served by fighting for full legal rights as couples while acknowledging a different definition of that relationship. They could go further, faster, and achieve the same actual results without having to convince the rest of the populace that “red is green”, so to speak.

By my reading you are suggesting that gay couples be treated under some "Separate but Equal" condition. Yet, you say that is not your point. So, what is it that you are asserting?

It seems to me that you are trying to have wiggle room in your pronouncements, and are doing everything you can not to say that you believe marriage to be solely between a man and a woman- even though your posts are practically screaming this. If this is what you truly believe, you should have the courage of your convictions and just come out and say it. You are dancing around the issue and it is transparent.