If abortion were rare, I might agree with you that there is some trade-off involved that we have to consider, some hard-luck cases. But about 25% of my generation was killed by abortion, including 50% of black babies. That's sickening, and the word "genocide" starts to creep into my mind.
The same sex marriage debate is nowhere near as urgent or serious as the abortion debate.
Serious issues like abortion must be approached with more care than you are offering it. Call things like they are, firstly, and avoid bending the English language for dramatic effect. Abortions deal with an "embryo" or "fetus", not a "baby" or a "generation", both of which are born beings (out of the womb). The argument is thus not "is it ok to murder people?", as you're trying to make it look like (we've solved that ethical problem already...), but rather, the question is "when does an embryo become a 'person'?".
> "Serious issues like abortion must be approached with more care than you are offering it"
The same can be said for same-sex marriage and related issues (polygamy, civil unions for widows/widowers who don't want to remarry, the imposition of religious definitions on secular society OR secular definitions on religion, and so on.) Can you give me a good reason why the benefits attached to marriage should be attached to family A but not family B? Does your reasoning hold up when introducing family C into the mix? What if one family doesn't want to use the term "marriage" but another does?
Take my family: I live with my wife, my son, my sister, and her son. I'm responsible for both children during the normal work day. It seems reasonable that this family arrangement should allow us certain benefits which are presently tied to marriage, like access to my nephew's school records and being able to schedule medical appointments for him.
As the rest of your comment demonstrates, if you choose certain terminology, you can make complex issues appear to have obvious and simple solutions. The question of how to legally define family relationships deserves far more care than it's usually given.
The language has already been corrupted. I am correcting that. It's amazing what people can get comfortable with when Kermit Gosnell is "snipping" "fetuses" instead of beheading babies.
The fact is that real people that would have existed now don't (50 million Americans since Roe v. Wade). That may not be murder, but it is certainly something akin. Filling the language with euphemisms doesn't change the reality.
You are again pushing the "beheading" and "murder" argument, which is not what people disagree on. People agree already that these things are wrong (wow!). But you just hinted at what the problem actually is when you said "That may not be murder, but it is certainly something akin". So, again, the question is: what is it? When is it murder? Can I kill sperm? Can I let a woman have her period? Can I kill an egg that has just come into contact with a sperm? What about 1 second later? 1 minute after?
Keep in mind, I'm not even taking a position here. I'm just letting you know what the fuss is about.
The same sex marriage debate is nowhere near as urgent or serious as the abortion debate.