[Cerek]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: The logic becomes flawed only when the equation is changed - like you have done by including unions of more than two people into the mix.

That may be true, but it is simply naive to think that others won't try to "change the equation" for their group once you change the definition for another group.

Your basic argument has been that two people should not be denied civil rights simply because they love someone else of the same gender and that expanding the definition to allow this union is the only way to provide "equality to all". I'm just pointing out that a logical extension of that logic is to say that the next step is to say it isn't fair to limit marriage to just two people when there are several citizens in our society that feel they love two other people equally and all three of them feel they should be allowed to marry and receive the same rights as married couples do. For the three people who feel this way, your expansion of "marriage" still does not provide "equality for all". Why should marriage be limited only to two people? Mormons can even bring in the argument that restricting marriage to two people is also a restriction on their religious freedom.

Originally posted by Chewbacca: And whats this about "our society"? Two people of the same gender can freely marry here in Massachussetts where I live and many dictionaries include same-gender marriage as one of the defintions of marriage. Sorry, but "our" society hasnt made the last word yet.

I never said our society has made the last word yet, but our society DID make a very strong statement on the how they felt marriage should be defined when they voted on the State Constitutional Amendments. So, YES, our society HAS spoken on this issue, you just don't agree with what they said.