My argument is based on risk factors. If we were to compare two couples one heterosexual and the other homosexual, both are infertile and both have contracted the same STDs (or alternatively are completely immune), and the society they are entering is without prejudice then by all means flip a coin. Unfortunately we do not live in such a world, we live in reality. Things like risks to health, likelihood of achieving higher education, of remaining in employment, of getting married, of committing a crime, etc, etc are all applied every day to every facet of society, whether on an age, race, gender, geographic, economic or any other basis. Applying EXACTLY the same statistical analysis results in Gays having a higher risk of increased health costs in regards to both disease and reproduction and additionally cause greater social angst (although as I have said, I see this as a minor factor, that, as has been shown to me, diminishes with time). When there is dramatic differentiation between risk factors we do not ignore it (for example, Affirmative Action), so why do you expect society to ignore the higher cost (and therefore lower value) of homosexual couples?These "risk factors" have nothing to do with whether or not this should be called "marriage" or something else. These factors would be the same, because more people are not going to become gay just because they can now legally get married. So...why are you so opposed to it being called marriage again? Keep digging yourself into that hole.