So skin color had no conflict with the basic essence of marriage--except, of course, throughout most of American history. I mean over 400 years of anti-miscegenation laws certainly say something about how marriage was defined in the U.S.<quoted text>
Skin color had no conflict with the basic essence of marriage; a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Duplicate gendered couples are not just an obvious distinction from diverse gendered couples, they are a direct defective conflict with the very basic purpose of evolution.
You have no argument for 'equal' rights. If you dumb down marriage to 'two people in a committed relationship', you immediately discriminate against other friendships and the number involved.
That you find no problem with it now is simply a matter of you being born during a period when minority races were fighting for equality.
Future generations will see same-gender marriage much the same way that you see interracial marriages now.
Your argument about "dumbing down" marriage by allowing same-gender marriage is not all that different than those who believed mixed-race marriage would "dumb down" purity found in same-race marriages of the past.
I guess what I'm saying is that the world has heard your arguments in the past and it eventually decided it was a crock of shit. Mixed-race marriages were made legal and nothing happened. People didn't suddenly want to marry their dogs. Bigamists didn't suddenly get laws passed to make their relationships legal. No incestuous marriages were performed.
Your scare tactics are stupid and have been overruled in the past.