[A] supposed "extension" of marriage to gay people in fact removes the right to marry from heterosexual people.

This can seem like a perversely contorted claim, but its logic is quite straightforward: the intended change in the definition of marriage would mean that marriage as traditionally defined no longer exists. Thus heterosexual people would no longer have the right to enter into an institution understood to be only possible for heterosexuals, as doubly recognising both the unique social significance of male/female relationship and the importance of the conjugal act which leads naturally to the procreation of children who are then reared by their biological parents.

Blah, blah, blah, YAWN. So if gay marriage becomes possible in my area, I've lost something? I guess this reasoning could be extended to anything. When women gained the ability++ to vote, men lost the right to vote. When blacks gained the ability++ to sit wherever they like on public transportation, whites lost the right to do so. How much brain damage do I need to submit to for this to make sense to me?

Isn't it ironic that, as usual, it's conservatives who put forth this ridiculous idea? They love "small government", "individual rights", yada yada, but oh--by the way--we'll deny your rights and peep into your bedroom window.

++ I say "the ability...", not "the right..." because I'd opine that "the right" was there all along--it had simply been denied.