Gay-marriage logic is like this:
21 year olds can drink
Some 21 year olds aren't responsible enough and you rarely take the right from them! And some 20 year olds are, so let's move it down to 20.
20 year olds can drink
Some 20 year olds.... etc.

At some point the line has to be drawn. Gays simply want the line drawn at 20, instead of 21. Some want it drawn at 19.

The most natural line is heterosexual couples.

That logic goes on forever. Here are examples of what will happen, and there have been parties sincerely supporting all of the following throughout history and the present:

So we extend it to gay couples, because we must give them equal rights.

Then we extend it to two gay brothers who wish to marry. It is their equal civil right.

Then I in all sincerity sue for equal benefits as a single as a married couple has. The basis is equal work for equal pay. I honestly believe it is my civil right--and what we should be fighting for.

Then we extend it to two best friends who wish to marry, just to share benefits and retirement. It is their equal civil right and could be a pressing need for them. It is their civil right. Love and sex should in no way be required.

Then Mormons and Muslims say it is their equal civil right to marry, also protected by the natural inclination of men to have multiple sexual interests and by freedom of religion. It is no less than their civil right. And polygamy is still much more recognized and reasonable as a mating practice than gay marriage. Who are we to limit the number?
Then a gay couple with a surrogate mother wishes to keep her around to be a mother-figure to the child. They sue that it is the mother's civil right, their civil right being that she is necessary to the family, and the child's civil right to all be considered the same natural family and share benefits and societal recognition.

Then a group of three men enters an arrangement with one woman. It turns out it is really just an "economic arrangement" to support the woman. But that is their civil right.

Then five men and five women sue that their should be no requirement on number of parties at all. People should be able to do whatever they wish. It is their civil right.
And society must recognize it.

And you will tell me these lawsuits will not happen, and be argued as a Civil Right with all sincerity by the parties involved? Parties hold these opinions already.

The solution is NOT to give marriage to gay unions, but to give equal benefits to all workers which solves almost all of the above problems and is THE most just thing to do, as unequal benefits to INDIVIDUALS IS a civil rights issue. Further, we need to expand civil union benefits while allowing any party to continue to believe that nature prefers the way nature set things up.

The problem with gay marriage is you wish to enforce people to live by ONE of these extensions to marriage. YOURS.

There are a lot of answers, such as civil unions. However, the most natural limit on "marriage" is only to those intended by nature to mate.

And the argument that SOME members of a logical group don't meet the full capabilities of the group is never a proper logical reason for expanding the logical grouping to those known with certainty to not meet the capabilities.

If you wanted to start a horse farm and I sold you a mare and a mare instead of a mare and a stallion and told you it was exactly the same because you could go outside that couple to reproduce you would tell me I was full of it and ask for your money back, and sue me.

Oh, and BTW, when you are telling us that ANY of these classes are different than gay marriage, some may equally say you are a h8ful bigot that opposes civil rights and progress and only thinks rights need to be extended to your favored group.

Every argument you will place on ANY of the above is simply the arguments heterosexual-only marriage supporters are using with gay marriage.
*************
The most natural, and only sensible, limit for marriage is clearly those of the group that can generally create children TOGETHER.
*************
Gay families are still families, deserving of recognition as such with any right that does not trample on another's freedom of THOUGHT.

Please limit this discussion to WHERE the LIMIT should be, and WHY. The other subjects have been beat to death.

The solutions I recommend are:
*Seek to expand civil union rights nationally
*Seek equal benefits for equal work
*Seek fixed retirement plans that tend to reward any party, married or not, equally overall
*And again, recognize that those who think only naturally mating things should be societally recognized as married are not crazy at all, as it is a quite logical line, even if it is not where you believe quite logically it should be.