Just because marriage has traditionally been defined one way in your society does not mean that all societies you interact with must adopt the same definition.

In fact, your burger analogy perfectly demonstrates the point. Yes, once upon a time, "hamburger" meant a patty of ground beef. However the word "burger" has long since lost the implication of meat and is now freely used to refer to any and all grilled, fried, and baked patties served on a bun.

It's not as though the hamburger was created specifically to be a meat product, and the non-meat hamburgers be damned: it's that when the hamburger was created, the only things of its kind were made of meat. A veggie burger can be "fake meat", but it isn't a "fake burger" unless it's not actually food.

Exactly! But... Why get so angry with people that loves meat burger and don't agree that "veggie burgers" are burgers? Unless they go out and attack veggie restaurants, they are not wrong.

Moving this logic to social dynamics, if the majority of the population don't agree two person of the same sex forming a couple is a marriage, why get so angry at this? It is counterproductive as it helps the right wing join forces irrationally around a common ground. People that don't agree with this discussion are not all "cis-gendered white males".

> Why get so angry with people that loves meat burger and don't agree that "veggie burgers" are burgers?

Because said people are often trying to use the force of law to stop you calling your burger a burger.

You can say what you like at home or even in public (and reveal your prejudices to the world), but when it comes to using the state to enforce inequality that's a different matter.

> Because said people are often trying to use the force of law to stop you calling your burger a burger.

This is the definition of society/democracy. Imagine if Scientology started change US laws?

Really not, it's just like marriage involving people of the same gender. There's no practical difference.

Marriage has meant all sorts of things over the ages in various cultures.

> There's no practical difference.

There're a lot of practial differences and I can give you some:

- male/female couples might have offsprings

- Children change the amount of resources consumed and available

- States need to plan based on these numbers and their variation

- Married couples behave differently than single male and females both short and long-term which also affect governmental planning.

So there are a lot of reasons to say that's wrong to add a lot of noise to this only for the sake of calling it marriage.

There's not even a single reason there, let alone many.

Older people get married past the age of childbirth, infertile or avowed child-free opposite-sex couples marry too.

The 'signal' is already hopelessy noisy and not fit for any sort of purpose. Plus, "we were using those numbers for something they are inherently unsuitable for" is no valid reason to continue discrimination.

At this point it really looks like you're grasping at straws to justify what is just a prejudice.

Gay couples can't have offspring?! Lots of them do, actually.

What makes it fake?

As a social dynamics that evolved for safer copulation and procreation, what in 2 people bonding together looks like a marriage? You can pretend that they are just like every other couple (fake until 'we' make it?), but this is exactly what I call fake.

I know a large amount of married straight couples who don't have children for whatever reason - are they in a fake marriage too? Is there as much moral outcry about this, should there be law to enforce that married couples have children?

I also know married straight couples who've adopted children rather than having their own - are those fake families? Would a gay couple who adopted a child be creating a fake family?

The only thing consistently binding marriages across cultures in the US and my own country, IME, is that two people have agreed to love and care for each other "until death do us part".

> As a social dynamics that evolved for safer copulation and procreation

I'm not ever going to have kids with my girlfriend, am I to be restrained from marrying her?

My mother was well past the age of childbearing when she married her current husband.

Your argument doesn't hold water.

...and now its evolved again. So what?

Who say so? That is exactly the problem. Some people think it evolved and some don't. Are people willing to go to war because of this? It is interesting. The American Civil War was because of slavery and never again it was accepted world-wide so it might happen again.

Some people think it's evolved and some don't, but that's a very good reason to get the Government out of the business of regulating what is a marriage and what isn't - otherwise you're forcing one social group's beliefs on another group.

My getting married - according to my definition of married - doesn't affect you in any way, shape, or form, so why would the Government prevent me from doing so?

I have interacted with people online who seemed to genuinely think that the ability of a same-sex couple, that they have never met and never will, to get married would deeply affect the value of the ongoing relationship they had with their opposite-sex spouse.

I never did get to the bottom of how that was supposed to work.