You are missing that the marriage contract is really a three party contract, not a two party contract. In exchange for recognizing the husband and wife's marriage contract the state puts obligations on the parties to the contract.
If the state opens up this contract to gays, it starts the process of decreased expectations on that contract. The fear is that the marriage contract will loose its meaning over time.
when I first started thinking about this issue, I had the same view you did. But as I projected into the future, the social conservatives are probably right. This will be the start of a trend that isn't good.
Their is a way to circumvent this and its to get ahead of the curve and create a form a marriage separate but economically equal. however that won't happen. The politico's won't take the income hit and eventually the courts will impose this.
Hey, I got a novel idea. Let's go back to making marriage entirely a religious ceremony. And get the interfering slave manufacturing government out of the picture...
If the state opens up this contract to gays, it starts the process of decreased expectations on that contract. The fear is that the marriage contract will loose its meaning over time.
imho, you've nicely outlined the only decent non-religious argument against gay marriage.
what i would ask you is what exactly are a couple's obligations to the state under a marriage contract? and would you not say that the contract has already lost its traditional meaning in a society which has adopted a liberal attitude toward contraception, fornication, adultery, and divorce?