There are many (including me) who belive that the term mariage specifically (and exclusively) refers to the spiritual and legal union of a man and woman as husband (that would be the man) and wife (that would be the woman). Marriage is conveyed certain privileges in our society, and the purpose of marriage is to establish families for creating and raising children.
I apologize here if I get too graphic, but sometimes it helps to identify what those with other opinions are actually trying to achieve.
I also believe that marriage is not, and should never be, a legal "right" or package of government provided "benefits" for a man and whoever (or whatever) he sticks his penis in. I don't believe marriage should ever be a legal "right" or package of government provided "benefits" for a woman and whoever (or whatever) she allows to penetrate or stimulate her vagina. Those who wish to define marriage in terms of sexuality miss much of the point of marriage, and they probably have no business getting married in the first place (and that goes for a lot of heterosexuals, too).
Like I said earlier, friends, lovers or whatever have the means available today to address most of the issues of "partnership." Anybody can establish a living will and convey to other the right to be consulted on medical decisions, and to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapacitated person. The example given before of someone who has their "life partner" (whatever the heck that is) excluded from their life when they become ill because the "judgmental parents" don't approve of their "lifestyle" can be handled within existing laws in most states.
Your analogy had no semblance of similarity whatsoever.
Thanks for the lecture, but you're losing sight of what I said when I originally entered this thread. You don't need to lecture me on why marriage is for one man and one woman. You don't need to lecture me on it's value to our society or it's traditional place or it's saction by God. I don't and haven't disagreed with any of that.
My gripe is and always has been the utterly stupid, dismissive, and disingenuous sophistry that I've seen here far too many times now. That gays are free to marry, as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex.
Do you honestly think that's a substantive, persuasive or credible argument??? If so, you're neck deep in denial.
If anything that kind of argument only paints you as someone who has no rational basis on which to argue his case for traditional marriage and is simply relying (hoping) that the argument for "tradition" carries enough weight to prevail. And I'm telling you, warning you, you better come up with a more logical and defensible basis or you will indeed see gay marriage come to fruition in the U.S.
In the past here on FR, I've made a rational basis case for preserving traditional marriage. Sadly, as far as I've seen, no one else seems to be able to do the same with any veracity. Simply saying "it's always been that way" will not hold for long. You better sharpen your argument.