lol.. I never said I bat both ways, and I certainly never said I wouldn't. I'm not sure why you bring it up, do you think it bothers me or something? Do you really think you are that important that you questioning my sexuality would make one bit of difference to me? Lol... I hope you have a plan B.<quoted text>
Well, Adif, you have as much as admitted here that you bat both ways. I guess you want everyone else to live in as much denial as you do--in the name of equality.
But the reality is that in this wonderful world we have people who are attracted oppositely, some who are attracted the same, and some, like yourself, who seem to go both ways. And the majority are able to come to peace with who they are.
There is no need to require everyone else to give up something (as I would imagine you see yourself as having to do) in order to participate in marriage.
Government is only in the business of marriage for the express purpose of directing society as society at large deems fit. Government was never involved in what we call marriage until until some king in Europe attempted to wrestle power away from the church and in the US, government only got involved for the legal disposition of property and offspring.
Now, all of that can be accomplished without marriage. Marriage from a government perspective is pretty much negated in today's age. however, as long as it exists as a product of arcane expression of power to influence the good of the subjects under it, then adding to it is nothing but asking for extra rights.
No where in any law concerning marriage that I can find does it say anything about attraction or love or feelings or anything. You can marry someone entirely for business purposes or you could become legal for religious purposes. It simply does not take any of it into consideration. The argument of attraction or love is a non sequitor in this matter.