Excuse me, but a diverse gender couple is NOT the same as as a duplicated gender couple.
Moreover, because a redumbant gender couple is mutually sterile, they DON'T need the same rights and protections.
Sorry Queen, it is you who looks silly gay twirling your way out of the corner.<quoted text>
A "diverse gender couple" in their 20's and 30's is not the same as a "diverse gender couple" in their 70's or a "diverse gender couple" in which there are sterility problems or a "diverse gender couple" in which there is no desire for children.
Since these "diverse gender couples" are not going to have children. They have crossed the line to "redumbant couples" and should not have the same rights and protections.
If same-gender couples are refused protections and rights of marriage, then so should these other, childless couples.
Do you enjoy painting yourself into a corner?
The point was the difference between a diverse gendered couple and a duplicate gendered couple. You simply lied.
And the fair distinctions only continue when you consider the aspect of procreation (or total lack thereof...).
The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples;
An apple tree bearing fruit.
An apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
A walnut tree who never bears any fruit wanting to be an apple tree.
A walnut tree hanging apples on it's branches pretending to be an apple tree.
The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too!