Yes, because that's equality.
We've tried "separate but equal" before, haven't we? It doesn't work out, and it's used as an excuse for continuing discrimination.
This is not entitlement, it's equal treatment.
In fact, your burger analogy perfectly demonstrates the point. Yes, once upon a time, "hamburger" meant a patty of ground beef. However the word "burger" has long since lost the implication of meat and is now freely used to refer to any and all grilled, fried, and baked patties served on a bun.
It's not as though the hamburger was created specifically to be a meat product, and the non-meat hamburgers be damned: it's that when the hamburger was created, the only things of its kind were made of meat. A veggie burger can be "fake meat", but it isn't a "fake burger" unless it's not actually food.
Moving this logic to social dynamics, if the majority of the population don't agree two person of the same sex forming a couple is a marriage, why get so angry at this? It is counterproductive as it helps the right wing join forces irrationally around a common ground. People that don't agree with this discussion are not all "cis-gendered white males".
Because said people are often trying to use the force of law to stop you calling your burger a burger.
You can say what you like at home or even in public (and reveal your prejudices to the world), but when it comes to using the state to enforce inequality that's a different matter.
This is the definition of society/democracy. Imagine if Scientology started change US laws?
Marriage has meant all sorts of things over the ages in various cultures.
There're a lot of practial differences and I can give you some:
- male/female couples might have offsprings
- Children change the amount of resources consumed and available
- States need to plan based on these numbers and their variation
- Married couples behave differently than single male and females both short and long-term which also affect governmental planning.
So there are a lot of reasons to say that's wrong to add a lot of noise to this only for the sake of calling it marriage.
Older people get married past the age of childbirth, infertile or avowed child-free opposite-sex couples marry too.
The 'signal' is already hopelessy noisy and not fit for any sort of purpose. Plus, "we were using those numbers for something they are inherently unsuitable for" is no valid reason to continue discrimination.
At this point it really looks like you're grasping at straws to justify what is just a prejudice.
I also know married straight couples who've adopted children rather than having their own - are those fake families? Would a gay couple who adopted a child be creating a fake family?
The only thing consistently binding marriages across cultures in the US and my own country, IME, is that two people have agreed to love and care for each other "until death do us part".
I'm not ever going to have kids with my girlfriend, am I to be restrained from marrying her?
My mother was well past the age of childbearing when she married her current husband.
Your argument doesn't hold water.
My getting married - according to my definition of married - doesn't affect you in any way, shape, or form, so why would the Government prevent me from doing so?
I never did get to the bottom of how that was supposed to work.