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.
Marriage certificate = birth certificate.
Secular, biological, no esoteric hobgoblins, no perverted ceremonious fakery - - crams the fallacious "separation of church and state" argument right back down their throats... (pun intended)
Sir, I think you are full of it...