Why don't homosexuals start their own same sex institution of union! Their own name, their own customs, their own traditions, their own ceremonies, a brand new institution of union for the human species! This is called freedom, true freedom. This is called diversity, true diversity. This is called equality as in equal opportunity. These are the values that political correctness stands for. So, am I to conclude heterosexuals can do somthing that homosexuals can't? So, what would be more phenomenally important and exciting for homosexuals than to start their own same sex institution of union? What would be the difference between a same sex institution of union and the institution of marriage? Why doesn't the human species have a same sex institution of union? What would be more phenomenally important and exciting for homosexuals than to start their own same sex institution of union? Question 1. Why don't homosexuals start their own same sex institution of union? Answer: because as everybody knows it wouldn't be the same as marriage. Question 2. What would be the difference between a same sex institution of union and the institution of marriage? Answer: a same sex institution of union would have absolutely nothing to do with the perpetuation of the human species, mating heterosexual relations, and by extension baby. Question 3. Why doesn't the human species have a same sex institution of union? Answer: because while a same sex institution of union sounds good in theory, human beings would be accurately matching-up their subjective reality with human relations objective reality to form the institution of marriage, and human beings would be accurately matching-up their subjective reality with human relations objective reality to form a same sex institution of union, none the less, human beings would not be able to maintain their accurate matching-up of their subjective reality with human relations in objective reality. That is to say sooner or later a same sex institution of union would become just another name for marriage which is why the human species doesn't have a same sex institution of union. And finally, what would be more phenomenally important and exciting for homosexuals than to start their own same sex institution of union? Answer: to have the perpetuation of the human species legally predicated on matingless homosexual relations! Please note that what a hypothetical same sex institution of union would be is what same sex marriage advocates claim that the institution of marriage is! So, am I to conclude equality like beauty is in the eye of the beholder? And if same sex marriage advocates are wrong then what are the consequences and why should those consequences be reevaluated?