So...basically, they don't meet your own approval. Gotcha. 
Seriously, what skin is off your back if they call it marriage? Absolutely nothing, is what. It neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg, so there isn't really any reason for you to worry about it, aside from being a busybody.
Ah, nice strawman. It's not like we've hashed out these issues in the past. It's clearly just bigotry on the part of those of us who oppose government recognition of homosexual relationships because you've never heard any other argument.
As I have said before (but not as succinctly) I support government recognition of marriage. A marriage represents the union of a male and a female for the formation of a stable family unit. For that reason we limit government recognition to that basic unit for the encouragement of stable families for the continued existence of our Republic.
Any other coupling does not have (1) the long history of creating a stable family situation (the studies on alternative family structures are mixed, at best) nor (2) does any other relationship provide such a clear distinction to limit the government recognition.
Recognizing homosexual relationships in the place of marriage cannot (logically) stop there. IF marriage is not between a man and a woman and just any two people who "love" each other (if you'll note, in the eyes of the state, they should not care whether you "love" your spouse or not) then why does the definition of marriage have to stop at two people? Logically, if the complementary of the the sexes has been discarded, the justification for two is gone.
It also removes the logical justification for preventing consanguineous marriage. In fact, it demands it. (Why can't a brother and sister get married- the danger to the children. What about two sisters? Err... ok, I guess they can get married. Now, by equal protection, we can no longer, logically, prevent a brother and a sister. Unless, of course, they just don't meet your approval.)
Further, if, as many supporters of government benefits for homosexual relationships will retort when told that marriage is about family and children, what about infertile couples!!!??11?$?!@?
The government intruding on people's lives to ascertain if they are infertile or not is an unacceptable breach of their privacy. Of course as we've thrown privacy out the window, go ahead and limit marriage to only fertile couples. I'd prefer not stigmatize the infertile further and go on a witch hunt after them, but have at it.
Now, some supporters of government benefits for homosexual relationships are fully logically consistent. (Micro being one of these, as we've hashed these arguments out a few times.)
But government benefits for homosexual relationships completely undermines any limitations on the definition of the word "marriage".
As for this part:
Seriously, what skin is off your back if they call it marriage? Absolutely nothing, is what. It neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg, so there isn't really any reason for you to worry about it, aside from being a busybody.
The state has already shown that it has no interest in banning gay marriage as it has in polygamous marriages. Gay people can call themselves married in every single state in the union and no jackbooted thugs will break down their door and drag them off to jail. Polygamous marriages do not have that same assurance. Some are tolerated, but not all.)
To anticipate the next question, "but how does government recognition of homosexual relationships as "marriage" affect your marriage?"
It doesn't. My
marriage is unaffected by most societal problems. My marriage is also unaffected by high marginal tax rates on high income earners. I'm still opposed to those tax rates. My marriage is also unaffected by allowing consanguineous marriages. I'm still opposed to them. My marriage is also unaffected by the wholesale slaughter of the unborn. I'm still opposed to it.
My opposition to homosexual marriage is not because there are immediate personal effects (although with the current witch hunts and lawsuits, there will very likely be personal costs not far down the road.) My opposition is that it is detrimental to society to further erode the foundation of the family.
In that vein, "gay marriage" isn't really the problem. It is but a symptom and a continuation of the degradation of the family that began over half a century ago with the liberalization of divorce laws.
As fistful has already pointed out, it is a matter of putting emotions ahead of logic or, as he put it "feels b4 realz". As we continue to put emotions ahead of logic, we will continue on the path to the demise of this once-great Republic.
