Marriage is an ancient formalization of the relationship between a male and a female (in some cultures, more than one female) with two basic gender related issues in mind. First, it gives the males exclusive access to the reproductive capapbility of the female; no constant fights or ceremony to woe her. Second, it helps assure that her children are actually his and, therefore, encourages the investment of his time and resources in protecting and raising them.
This is a no-brainer! You don't simply start calling a bunch of pigeaons ducks just because these pigeons think that ducks get a better deal in life. Allowing fairies to force normal people to redefine an old word just to fit the fairies preferences doen't make sense.
Well said, and the perfect metaphor for the problem. To allow 'pigeons' to be called ducks would be tantamount to legally allowing bottled hosspiss to be labeled and sold as 'Coca-Cola.' To allow lemons to be labeled and sold as peaches.
So you would not oppose the law allowing "civil unions" between same-sex couples as long as same-sex unions are not called "Marriage"? If your objection is to using the word "married" for same-sex couples, then I think that is an easy comprmise. Call it something else, but provide all the same rights and privileges accorded to married heterosexual couples.