Look who's talking! You don't see that granting a special privilege and a novelty institution is a dagnerous precedent, much less compelling others to render artificial respect and legal obligations to said institution, just because you perceive an iniquity where none exists. Because of the aberrant behavior and choices of homosexuals exclude them by their own choice from certain social constructs and lifestyles, they demand that a pointless institution be created and legally empowered, even forced down the throats of those who do not share their beliefs. This is not a case of inequality or discrimination - the status quo applies equally to both sides. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals have the exact same rights of marriage. Neither may marry a person of the same sex and either may marry any eligible person of the opposite sex. The personal choices of homosexuals to abstain from such arrangements does not entitle them to special privileges, anymore than the refusal of Catholics to eat meat on Fridays entitles them to legally compell restaurants to serve meatless dishes.

In what manner do they scare me, and why don't you demonstrate some evidence of that? You are the one making illogical, unreasoned and unsupported arguments. You draw parallels where none exist and compare completely unrelated institutions and practices. You are excoriating people for making a decision that affects their lives and communities because it is at odds with your aesthetic sensibilities.

You are the one trying to do damage, by insisting that people make changes they will have to live with and do not want to, according to your ideals, while showing absolutely no evidence of having considered the ramifications beyond an artificial abstract notion of false equality.

You are a shallow, thoughtless and selfish demagogue, regardless of ideology.