CM_Tutor said:@Drdusk, granting marriage rights to non-heterosexual couples is about extending rights granted to the majority to a minority as a part of achieving equality under the law.
Except there already was equality under the law. Everyone had the right to marry somebody of the opposite sex, regardless of sexuality. What was actually done is an expansion of the definition of marriage to include different pairings.
Equality isn't neccessarily 'do what you want as long as it's the one option I like'. I would rather say it's allowing people (within reason) to choose what option they want. It really depends how you're defining it.
This is a commonly made, but weak, argument. I can turn it around and say that any "expansion" extended rights to opposite sex couples. That heterosexuals would not choose to exercise the right to same-sex marriage illustrates exactly why the availability of opposite-sex marriage is not a meaningful option for same-sex couples.Everyone had the same rights.
The right to marry is about formalising and legally recognising the relationship between two people who share a particular kind of bond. That bond is not the kind that a same-sex attracted individual has with a person of the opposite sex.