To put the point plainly, marriage is between a man and a woman. What law denies any American the benefit of that? I don't see the homosexual lobby having a basis of complaint.
Like I said before, what's the big deal?
I don’t want to argue with you because I think we agree on the fundamental level; of course marriage is between one man and one woman.
Nevertheless, I think your original argument is a sophism based purely on semantics. Your argument is based solely upon the interpretation of the English language, it has no meat backing it up. Your argument is valid because of a technicality; that makes it weak.
Let me provide an example. I’m a guy. Under current law, I cannot marry Mike, but my sister Jane can. Clearly, this is gender discrimination, and may even implicate constitutional equal protection concerns. Why does Jane have the right to marry Mike (and yes, the Supreme Court has basically ruled that choice of marital partner is a fundamental constitutional right), yet I don’t? Our only difference is gender?
I’m sure you see that argument as weak and inconsequential. It is a pathetic argument, but it is technically true. Therein lies my objection. There are better arguments against homosexual marriage than, “A gay man can marry a woman.”
There are many genuinely valid arguments against homosexual marriage. Marriage is an institution designed to foster the upbringing of kids, and homosexuals don’t have children. That is a legitimate argument. Don’t just say that any homo can marry a member of the opposite sex and leave it at that. It weakens the conservative cause and makes us look like dolts.