Which is exactly my point.
Anyone who contributes such a small part of marriage has no authority to define marriage. That has already been accomplished in numerous ways.
This is why marriage has always been diverse couples in every single culture across history. Government has not even been a part in many of those places, and still is not in some.
Like I said, if you want the legal aspects, get a gay union and rights that are specific to a duplicate couple.
1. I didn't define marriage. I simply gave the historical essence of it. You have no counter to address it.<quoted text>
And you have the authority to define marriage? Are you that narcissistic? Wait...I just remembered who I'm talking to. Of course, you are.
A civil union does not provide all the rights and benefits that a legal marriage does. If you insist on refusing marriage to gays, work toward equating the rights and benefits of civil unions to those of marriage. But then, they'd both be marriage, just with different names. Then, we're back, full-circle, to fighting for marriage again.
2. You also had no answer for government's historically limited role or even absence regarding marriage.
3. To have equal rights you have to have equal identity. Gay unions don't, therefore their rights will never be the same as marriage.