>> the mother you have not spoken to in 30 years cannot steal the money you left to your partner in your will because, as she says, "But they weren't a real couple, the law says so, so the will is illegal, so I should get the money".
I could go on ad infinitum....<<
I'll bet you could. Because you're making stuff up. Whoever you give things to in your will is not dependent upon being a real, gay, or imaginary couple. There's no stipulation in the law that says you can only give certain things to certain relations in your will. I'd love to know how you came to believe that there is.
I agree that homosexuals should have the same rights as everyone else--the right to have whoever they want visit them in the hospital, the right to have their possessions go to their partner in the event of their untimely demise, presuming that such a union has been recognized and that's clearly what they wanted. We don't want boyfriends and girlfriends stealing stuff the deceased would rather have go to mom, either. But this is not a matter of homosexual rights, rather of individual rights. Sure, I'm fine with being able to designate anyone for visitation rights. Sure, I'm fine with being able to designate (in addition to one's will) someone as a life partner who gets your stuff when you die in the absence of a will. There's no need to change the definition of the word marriage or hijack an institution that's existed for millennia in order to extend these rights to where they ought to be.
>>THAT is the crux of the matter, straight people want to pretend that the word marriage makes them special, makes them members of their own special club, but ultimately it is just a word, and any argument over that word is pathetic.<<
You're arguing that making sense is pathetic. Good luck with that one. Words have meaning. When you misuse them pretending you're making sense, you acknowledge that your logic is flawed and deception is required to appear to make a case. Homosexual couples, for instance, do not engage in any of the functions that heterosexual marriages do that make them fundamental to society. The meaning of the word is the point you continually miss. Homosexual couples do not fulfill the fundamental position in society that heterosexual couples do. Homosexual "marriage" would be using the same word to describe a completely dissimilar union. It's ignorant or dishonest, because it's not an accurate description of homosexual unions. They are incapable of the same function in society that defines marriage. I'm sorry that you're offended by nature, but there's no argument to be made that homosexual couples are capable of the same function in society which is responsible for the most basic building block of societies for thousands of years. They're not.
>>as for comparing infertile people to apes, I'd say that sort of comparison is what cluttering the debate.<<
Whoever argued that homosexual unions are parallel to heterosexual unions which are infertile cluttered up the debate with fallacious logic that teenagers are taught not to fall victim to. My reference was stressing _that they're not comparable_, which those who argued that homosexual people should be able to marry for the same reasons infertile people are were arguing. I'm sorry that my refutation of their claim was over your head. Functions of said couples was the subject, not legal standing. In reference to function the legality is irrelevant. My point was simple and apes demonstrated it simply (not simply enough for you, sorry). And "subjects?" Wow. I laughed out loud! 
Again, over your head. Perhaps responding to things that are over your head is what's cluttering up the exchange.
Technically, it's only a debate if there is engagement. This is as much of a debate as adversarial campaign ads are.
[I wish I could obey forum rules]
