TV's Frink said:

Mrebo said:

TV's Frink said:

It's dumb to assign a moral component to homosexuality.

You'll have to explain this to me.

My assumption - that's a rabbilope. The implication being if we allow gays to marry, it will lead to people marrying dogs, antelopes marrying rabbits...and then this happens.

That argument is utter rubbish of course, but maybe you meant something else.

xD The image above features a rabbit and an antelope which were literally "married" in the technical definition of that word. My point is that a technical definition of the word doesn't capture what marriage is as a social institution.

I am not making an argument against gay marriage. In my most recent post, I do reference bestial and vegetal marriage as proposed absurdities and I do not think those ideas have any merit.

I am arguing about preserving the morality attendant with marriage as a social construct. I do think gay unions could be included in marriage on a moral basis. Your statement that "It's dumb to assign a moral component to homosexuality" misses the point. I guessed correctly that you were not calling homosexuality immoral.