system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Marriage equality (gay marriage) does not threaten or endanger marriage for religious, traditional and straight couples.

Marriage is not in need of protection and gay marriage does not threaten marriage.  
UPDATE: Thanks to some posters I better sympathize with why people feel the recognition of an expanded definition of marriage feels threatening. Among other reasons, that is attributed to   
\*gatekeeping  
\* losing the authority to set the definition as it applies themselves  
\* the loss or dilution of legitimization of their religious/moral code   
These reasons are difficult to recognize in one's discomfort and probably why it's hard for me (and others) to find the blanket statement of  "'marriage' is threatened " justifiable. Thank you all who participated.   
(Edit: if you agree with me, please respect the rules of the subreddit and not echo. I just don't think it's a threat. If you think it's a threat to marriage, I want to know why)

I understand and accept that religious and 'traditional' people might not support marriage for same-sex couples. My view on supporting gay marriage is not up for being changed.What I find no logical support for is the argument that marriage as an institution is undermined or threatened by gay marriage.  A US Representative, in her arguments against the US Marriage Equality Act, pleaded, " “Protect religious liberty. Protect people of faith. And protect Americans who believe in a true meaning of marriage."  Since I am convinced there is nothing under threat, traditional marriage still exists and is equally recognized, there is nothing to protect.  I cannot find any legitimate arguments that marriage itself is under threat and consequently becomes a validated reason to stand against gay marriage.

Civil marriage, which is the marriage that is enacted by the government, is rather simply, a legal contract. Originally, one way to keep 'traditional' people happy, from feeling threatened, was to introduce  'civil unions' for same-sex couples that mirrored 'marriage'. To not have to reinvent the \[marriage\] wheel, it makes sense to include any two consenting adults wanting to enter into a civil marriage contract with each other. Religious marriages are defined and recognized by that religion.

Civil gay marriage does not intrude and it does not threaten traditional marriage.
gpt
Historically, "marriage" as an institution was not created as a private matter between two people, or as a love matter. The old and new versions of marriage are representative of the shift from a communal to an individual view of ourselves and of society, and the new version of marriage does threaten the communal view of society, and therefore threatens the identity of those who share that view.

People, historically, have seen themselves as members of a group more than as individuals. In Ancient Greece, banishment was considered a fate worse than death, because you were cut off from the group, from your identity and purpose.

Marriage was part of that - it was primarily a way for two families to become one, as part of a deal between the families. Part of the deal was children, because children ensure continuity, can contribute to the welfare of the new united family, and are a living representation of that union.

A marriage that is no longer about families uniting but about individual people uniting, a marriage that isn't about children, is a completely different thing, a thing that doesn't make sense in a communal society but makes sense in an individualistic one.

That's what religious people are REALLY upset about. A communal society only works if everyone follows the same rules, so when some people are following other rules, that's a threat to their view of the world and identity.