It's one man and one woman at our house, and that's not going to change no matter what any "redefinition" says. I'm sorry you don't feel as confident.
I appreciate your "sorrow" on my behalf.
Wisdom would be more appropriate. The reason your "one-man, one-woman" home won't change is because you were raised in a society in which marriage was defined as a social ideal whose worth to society and children had never been questioned.
It's not your marriage or mine that is threatened by demands that the institution be radically redefined. The issue is whether marriage -- if radically redefined to meet the demands of homosexual activists (now), then polygamists (next), then polyamorists, then who knows what -- will have any meaning remaining in the world in which your kids and grandkids have to try to raise their families.
Radically redefining marriage has obvious consequences re: religious free speech rights. Ask Catholic Charities in Massachusetts, which was just told it would be compelled by the state to process adoptions to "married" homosexual couples, despite the fact that the Vatican has formally declared such adoptions to do "violence" to children. Ask organizations and individuals in various countries who have been threatened with or actually prosecuted for so-called "hate crimes" for daring publicly oppose so-called homosexual "marriage."
Radical redefinition of marriage will also lead -- it already has in Massachusetts -- to public school children being taught that homosexual behavior and "marriage" is morally, socially, and legal equivalent of marriage between a man and a woman...including, according to an 8th grade teacher interviewed by NPR, graphic discussion of homosexual sex itself.
Redefining marriage has fiscal as well as social and moral implications. The Wall Street Journal published a Harvard University's professor's report that the Canadian government estimates that legalization of so-called homosexual "marriage" will cost taxpayers "hundreds of millions of dollars" just to provide retroactive Social Security survivor benefits to one new class of beneficiaries: homosexual "spouses." If you like the tax implications of homosexual "marriage," you'll love the tax implications of polygamy and polyamory (group marriage), which the Liberal government had just proposed legalizing before it was thrown out of power several months ago.
And the devaluation of marriage will have long-term demographic impact as well on the birth rate. Europe's a good example, where they've embraced the abortion-on-demand mantra and homosexual "marriage" and other social policies contributing to a dramatic decline in the birthrate...except among immigrant Muslim populations. Result: France projected to be a majority Muslim country by 2040, the entire continent by 2100.
So if you don't mind your grandkids growing up in a world where expressing a preference for real marriage is a "hate crime," facing an even higher tax burden as they try to raise their kids, and having to wear a burkha to visit Paris, then you're right, Grandma, radically redefining marriage won't have any effect on your family.
But surely you can't be that sel-centered and selfish.