Ludwig "It just automatically follows"

Again with the claims of inevitability!

We are not robots. We *choose* political/social outcomes, they don't just "automatically" happen.

A greater tolerance for gays does not mean law X or policy Y "must" follow.

<< Again with the claims of inevitability! >>

No Shocka, I’m not claiming that. It is not inevitable.

But as a point of logical argument, it automatically follows that gay marriage, or something closely akin to it under another name perhaps, should ensue.

I said; 'should' be formally accepted, not will be.

Ludwig "something closely akin to it under another name perhaps".

It is the redefinition of the term "marriage" that's half the controversy!
Some other name isn't "marriage".

Yes, one thing should "logically" follow another.
But since when are human beings, let alone politicians, logically consistent?

People can live with all kinds of contradictions with apparent ease, like the Lefties who are both pro-gay *and* pro-Muslim, all with a straight face.

<< It is the redefinition of the term "marriage" that's half the controversy!
Some other name isn't "marriage". >>

Agreed Shocka. By definition some other name isn’t marriage. But if it is essentially the same thing, then that would be fine by me.

Whether gay unions get called marriage or not should really be of no consequence, just as long as they are essentially the same thing with the same sort of legal ramifications and the same level of respect that our society extends to conventional marriage.

You and I can agree that another option is acceptable, but the activists with the megaphones won't.

It will be just one more slap in the face from the "fascists".
Something to hold a grudge about, rather than celebrate.