I am not religious in any way whatsoever. So much that we wrote our own wedding ceremony to avoid any religion. After leaving one abusive marriage, i waited years before i could even think about it. Now that i have someone who will cherish and love me, and i want to keep forever, being married meant a hundred times more to me, a non-religious person, than to many religious people I know. I find it terribly insulting that anyone would presume it matters more to them than to me.
And for that matter, my sister, finally finding the WOMAN she loves and deciding to spend her life with her, married in a church. Her marriage and wedding meant more to her than anyone straight that I have ever seen get married. How dare you say she, a woman you have never known, takes anything away from you by getting to be legally and spiritually joined with her life partner!
I use this example a lot, but I think that tv shows where you "win" a bride or a groom (like The Bachelor) is much more threatening to the state of marriage and how people view it than gay marriage. Celebrity marriage is more threatening! It certainly gives teenagers, who are exposed to those things, a warped view of what marriage should be.
Anyway, the religious people don't own marriage. Lots of us who aren't religious at all feel very passionate about our own marriages and why it is important to us. I'm somebody's wife, I have a husband. That is intensely meaningful. I made vows that I take very seriously.
I do see both as a threat to a traditional view of marriage, one reason we don't have TV in our house is because of all the nonsense.
Of course it is threatening to the traditional view of marriage.. It is not the same as it. It will be changing the definition of what marriage is. And thus threatens the traditional view/definition of marriage.
It is not a good example, as it is a different definition.
heterosexual couple (2 people of consenting age) is the current societal definition.
changing any of those attributes, changes the definition of what a marriage is.
You may be ok with changing the definition, but you can not say it isn't changing the definition. And thus can not state that changing one of the attributes doesn't "threaten tradition marriage" OF course it does. You are just OK with it.
Changing the definition does not, to me, pose any threat. You can still have YOUR hetero marriage and they can now enjoy the same perks you do.
IMO it still doesn't change the definition. I've always considered it defined as two life partners joining together, legally and/or religiously. Maybe it's just how you choose to define it in the first place...