Pretty good point, but homosexuals can marry. A homosexual man can marry any eligible woman who is willing to marry him and and lesbian woman can marry any eligible man who wants to marry her.
Homosexuals who, instead of getting married to someone of the opposite sex, engage in relationships with people of the same gender CHOOSE not to get married.
Marriage “equality” is already the law of the land. They are trying to fundamentally redefine the meaning of marriage, not obtain, “equal rights”.
Homosexuals can marry each other or their favorite sheep ~ what they can’t do is register that marriage with the gub’mnt.
Here's a portion of a letter I just sent to a local radio dude on that very topic (sorry so long):
"Let's say that my Alma Mater, the University of Central Florida, decided that it didn't want to be known as a 'directional' school any more, and opted to drop the 'Central' bit from its name. Immediately, there would be a backlash from the students and graduates of that (smaller) school up in Gainsville. "Hey, that's OUR name - we already had it, and it's OURS." The newly dubbed University of Florida would retort that it's just a name, and that they were entitled to it since they operated an institution of higher learning - in Florida - in the same manner as the folks from Gainsville... and it's not fair that the smaller school should have more name recognition.
"My point here is that UCF should not have the same name, because what they have, what they do, and how they go about their business is simply DIFFERENT. It is not the same, and therefore should not be called the same. It's a silly example, but I think I can show that Gay marriage is even further away from the definition traditional marriage than UCF is from the UofFla.
"Marriage - yes, as defined in the Bible and other religious circles - is (1) the union of a man and a woman for (2) a religious familial union. Frankly, I would also oppose calling man/woman unions performed by a justice-of-the-peace 'marriage', for exactly the same reason: it avoids the religious portion of the definition. [ But it does at least work for the needs of The State, as I'll outline later. So if you want to call that a civil union or whatever...I don't care. ]
"But isn't a gay marriage "close enough" to call it 'marriage'? No! And it's like a bullying exercise to demand otherwise, for those holding to the Biblical definition also would point out that same sex behavior - let alone 'marriage' - is banned via the scriptures in the most direct of terms. It is literally the equivalent of telling Catholics to roll over and allow Obamacare to force insurance coverage for contraceptives and abortion.
"I can understand The State needing to have marriages registered, for that helps out for tracking people, tracking births, planning for schools, infra-structure, etc... but I have never been crazy about the idea of The State being involved in establishing marriages because - immediately - one of the two parts of the marriage definition were changed: the religious aspect was removed. So when people complain about the violation of religious liberties, that's the argument: the very definitions are being changed and people with deeply held religious beliefs are being told to take it and shut up. Please note that neither part of my two-part definition of traditional marriage is being upheld when gays opt to 'marry'."
That's the real issue, but no-one seems to be talking about it.