Thank you for illustrating the point. Therefore:
To support same-sex marriage is to support polygamy. To support same-sex marriage is to support underage marriage. To support same-sex marriage is to support consensual incestuous marriage. To support same-sex marriage is to support bigamist-bisexual marriage. To support same-sex marriage is to support marriage for anyone who wants it, no matter the form it takes.
Anything short of this is an irrational exclusion, per your definition.
Your definition of freedom is libertinism--that is, "I refuse to allow myself to hinder someone else's freedom when their freedom does not in anyway limit mine."
Should drugs be legal? Your answer is, "I refuse to allow myself to hinder someone else's freedom when their freedom does not in anyway limit mine."
What about prostitution? It doesn’t affect your marriage. "I refuse to allow myself to hinder someone else's freedom when their freedom does not in anyway limit mine."
Nudity doesn't limit your freedom. In fact, preventing it limits freedom. "I refuse to allow myself to hinder someone else's freedom when their freedom does not in anyway limit mine."
Abortion doesn’t affect you. They say it’s a woman’s choice. "I refuse to allow myself to hinder someone else's freedom when their freedom does not in anyway limit mine."
Pornography on a school teacher’s computer? Who cares? It doesn’t limit your choices. "I refuse to allow myself to hinder someone else's freedom when their freedom does not in anyway limit mine."
With this philosophy of government, you just made everything so simple! Freedom for all, to do whatever we please! No restraints, no restrictions! Just keep out of my business, and I’ll keep out of yours!
Is that really what you believe?
Marriage to minors can adversely affect minors -- they grow up to be bad society people. Single minors are better people than married minors. This has nothing to do with whether their singleness makes you happy or not. The law is to protect them from them -- not you from them. As voting adults, we feel superior to children to make these decisions for them knowing all too well that they will grow to be independent adults able and encouraged to make their own decisions. Therefore we have laws for minimum marriage ages. Age changes equally for everyone. Every nation has these laws. It's culturally genetic. There does not seem to be any good arguments for allowing it anywhere in the world. You and I agree on that, but it's still a state issue as you pointed out that many states allow different marriage ages. It's not federal.
As far a polygamy goes, I could careless. Some nations allow it. Ours does not. Those nations that do allow polygamy have very good arguments for allowing it, such as those that support stability in society. I'm not going to get into that. The same applies to prostitution. Some nations allow it. Nevada allows it. There are age limiting laws, and some require licensing. The same applies to drugs and pornography. Some nations allow it.
In all these cases, drugs, cigarettes, alcohol, pornography, polygamy, gay marriages, can be limited by age laws. When I try to understand why there are age laws against these acts, the only conclusion I find is that they are invented to prevent you from hurting yourself. Age is an attribute that you possess, that changes outside of your control. If you cannot buy cigarettes (or get married) now because you are too young, wait a while. Soon, the law will recognize that you are mature enough to make that decision.
Can you not see the difference? Do you just lump all the things that you don't personally like into one category, that supporting one somehow condones all others?
Can you claim that the same argument against minors getting married applies to adult gay marriage? Can you say, preventing gays from getting married protects gays from them? Do you feel superior to adult gays so that you can make decisions that limit them for their benefit? We know you will never pass a law that prevents them from "being" gay or practicing gayness. So how do you justify righteously going up to two specific gay adults and tell them that they cannot get married. Marriage today means making some long-term promise to the other person that they will be treated with higher respect than anyone else for however long the vows state. Don't use the "God" argument because the government is supposed to stay out of religious arguments.
Here's a classic popular marriage vow I stole from the net:
“I, John take thee Mary to be my wedded wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till in death we part, and with this ring I thee wed, and with my body I thee honor, and pledge my faithfulness.”
Vows do vary. One-size does not fit all. The definitions of these terms are vague across cultures. All that's important for marriage is that the two people getting married agree on what their vows means. In the case of legal conflict, the law refers to their culture or their religion for interpretation -- not yours. Ideals are supposed to get more abstract when you go up the hierarchy (toward the federal) and more concrete when you go down the hierarchy (toward the local state and individuals). We are supposed to be a bottom-up society (capitalism, laissez-faire, democracy, a republic that limits high-level government), not a top-down one (socialism, communism, theocracy, a constitution that tells the government what they can do and must do).
How might a gay couple choose to change these vows? The answer is only in the names they choose to call each other.
“I, John take thee Mark to be my wedded spouse [or whatever they (the ones that create and own the vow) decide it should be], to have and to hold from this day forward, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till in death we part, and with this ring I thee wed, and with my body I thee honor, and pledge my faithfulness.”
How is denying a tax-paying legal abiding adult citizen from making this promise to another person adverse to society? I don't get it! I know it doesn't adversely affect them. All I understand is that you don't like it. American laws do not exist to make your life happy or reaffirm your philosophy or your religion! They exist to prevent you from making other people unhappy, and visa versa. You claim their actions make you unhappy. They argue the reverse, that you are preventing them from pursuing their happiness. But they go one step further, that you don't even know them, that you are not even affected by it. You are physically preventing them from pursuing their happiness. The reverse is not the case. Their argument is much stronger than yours. In this case, the government should do what it was established to do and just opt out, telling you to look the other way and mind your own business.
We can prove that marriage adversely affects minors. We cannot prove that marriage adversely affects gays. If you try to claim that their marriage affects your marriage, then you don't understand marriage.
All you seem to be arguing is that gay marriage somehow adversely affects you personally, regardless of your marital status. The burden of proof is upon you.
PS: Thanks for taking the time to continue this debate.