Heterosexual marriage laws exist because in traditional society, there is a compelling national interest in providing protected status to a stay-at-home spouse (June Cleaver) in the event of a tradegy involving the breadwinner.
1.June Cleaver is a fictional character, nobody was/is ever completely like the Cleavers.
2. This sitcom (Leave It to Beaver) aired in the 50s, where the husband and wife didn't even sleep in the same bed for crying out loud, so how does it relate to real life?
3. Most families both partners need to work to support themselves.
4. Even in the 50s, some women had to work to support themselves and their families.
5. How does this tie into gays and lesbians getting married, unless your trying to make the case that Mrs. Cleaver was secretly a lesbian. Though your argument would still fall flat on it's face if that was true.
At the same time, there is no compelling national interest in providing the same protection to an unemployed homosexual bus boy whose lover dies of AIDS.
1. Not all homosexuals are busboys (hell out of the at least twenty I know, none are), I know one who is a lawyer for example.
2. Straight people get AIDS to.
3. Not all homosexuals have AIDS just like not all heterosexuals have AIDS.
4. One cannot be a busboy and be unemployed at the same time.
Stereotypes? Sure, but they explain why marriage in the mainstream should be protected, while "marriage" among the fringers is just another form of tax evasion and entitlement.
So you admit that you use crude stereotypes. I can play the same game but I choose not to. Also straight marriage isn't just about love, some couples choose to do so because they get perks like lower taxes. So explain why we shouldn't allow same sex couples to get married without naming something that could also be applied to opposite sex couples.
