Ampersand argues that refusing "marriage equality" dilutes marriage by causing places to adopt "marriage lite" for homosexuals, which arrangement is then by necessity extended to heterosexuals, diluting marriage.
Supposedly, this is ironic, because marriage would be less so diluted if traditionalists gave in and let marriage extend to same-sex couples without a fight.
The problem, as I said more than four years ago, is that extending marriage to same-sex couples by nature turns it marriage itself into "marriage-lite."
The problem ultimately comes down to that the people who want to redefine marriage really don't understand that expanding the definition of marriage changes what marriage is. They view marriage as some unspecific contract, so there is no reason to restrict it to opposite-sex couples. That it is not an unspecific contract, and that extending it to same-sex cou[ples makes it moreso this, and that this changes the definition of marriage for everyone, cannot enter their brains.
As Lawrence Auster would say, they have no sense of transcendence. (At the very least, they have an underdeveloped one).
That is all.