What you want is a special rule for same **** couples.
What constitutes a special right? Is it something that will suddenly be denied opposite **** partners?
Well, I said "rule", not "right", but whatever. Um... If I marry a woman who has children of her own, I don't automatically become the legal guardian of her children upon her death. I have to adopt them. Just like anyone else. Just like the partner of a **** would have to.
Since that answer is no, we can clearly see that what is being requested isn't a special right, it's an equal right.
No. It's a special right you're asking for because you want a same **** partner who we all know isn't the biological parent of a child to automatically be considered as so. There are legal processes for adoption of a child, or joint guardianship, that do not require marriage. That's the direction that is open to **** couples just as it's open to any other two people. Thus they are treated equally under the law in this regard.
So if I and a male friend agree to help work together to raise his child (let's assume the mother has passed away, or he adopted the child), but we're not gay, are we any more or less restricted than a **** couple right now? No? Then it's not bigotry, and it's not being unfair to homosexuals, is it?
If you and your buddy want to live together and raise a child, who is anyone else to deny you things that would make that task easier? Don't you think it would be so much easier on both of you and the child if there was a way for you to gain the benefits currently only afforded opposite-sex married couples? Then if your buddy loses his job, no problem you can put him on your insurance. If he dies? Custody of the child isn't even a question - you inherit the property and get custody of the child without fanfare.
Um... That's the point. The marriage status ceases to perform the function it currently does, and becomes something any two people can (and should) enter into based on convenience and benefit. Which is precisely the argument for *not* doing this. By extending the status to same **** couples, you eliminate the procreative angle, and thus have no reason to limit it in any real way. It becomes a "goodie" handed out by the government rather than an incentive to be responsible with regards to procreation.
Aside from the fact that the comparison is absurd at best, downright insulting at worst, you just made our argument for us. What happens in the bedroom shouldn't be a consideration in 2013 America. All that should be a consideration is two people agreeing to spend their lives together, no matter what the reason.
I disagree (to the last bit). There's nothing preventing people from spending their lives together, whether they are a sexual active couple or not. The issue is that some sexually active couples will produce children as a consequence of that sexual activity, and it's in the states interest to get them to marry prior to doing so. Thus, the state creates a legal status with a marriage contract attached so as to encourage those couples to marry. The state doesn't care if **** couples marry, so there's no reason to provide benefits to them if they do so.
I just think that most people can't get past the assumption that marriage *is* the benefits and the status. It's not. It's the relationship between the two people. The legal status is a recognition of the relationship, a formalization of a three party contract (with the state being a party), and a set of benefits to provide people a reason to marry under that contract instead of one they just came up with themselves. You have to look at the history of legal marriage to understand that this is the case. Ask yourself why many states have common law marriage. Then ask why that's never been applied to two people of the same sex.
Step outside your assumptions about the issue and you might just realize that what I'm saying not only make sense, but is the far more logical way of approaching the issue.