>>I'm still hopelessly confused. It seems to me you are saying that you are saying that only people of the opposite sex are qualified to marry. I agree that this is correct in the narrow sense that law and tradition support it. But the law and tradition are, IMO, WRONG. I haven't been able to understand from your postings why the law and traditions SHOULD be this way and why they shouldn't be changed. What compelling reason is there to define marriage as between man/woman other than tradition?
>
>What is the compelling reason to change it? There are many things that we do because of traditions. If society is so advanced that this marriage tradition is not needed anymore, then why can't government just resign it returning it back to religious institutions? It would serve historical justice. Initially, it was created/maintained by religious institutions and government borrowed it for the sake of equality, convenience, legality, etc. If the initial definition is unimportant now then just return it back to those still seeing value in it.

I think I'm no longer confused and that I finally understand what you are saying.

There isn't anything wrong with gays getting married except that they haven't been allowed to do so for the past umpty-ump years so they shouldn't be allowed to do so now.