If I was promoting gender segregation marriage and I was called on it, I might dismiss the argument as a 'word game' too. I don't promote segregation, I'm defending the gender diversity and integration of marriage so I don't have to defend the bigotry like segregationists.Word games don't suit you, Brian. When all your arguments have failed, I suppose it's kind of cute to play word games. But now "apartheid"? That's too funny. Recognizing the right of same-sex couples to obtain civil marriages doesn't make same-sex coupling the "standard" in civil marriage. It removes the limitation based on sex. That's all. Opposite-sex couples can still marry, so they don't have to abide by your fake "standard." In recognizing civil marriage for same-sex couples, no one is segregated. Individuals now have MORE options, not fewer. No one is denied freedoms or liberty. Those who wish to marry a partner of the same sex may do so. Those who wish to marry a partner of the opposite sex may do so. Limiting civil marriage on the basis of sex limits freedom and liberty.
This issue isn't about freedom; gays can cohabit or have a religious marriage ceremony in every state. Brother/sister incest couples and polygamists face criminal prosecution but same sex couples don't. The issue is changing marriage law for everybody; I'm opposed.