How does banning same-sex marriage protect heterosexual marriages?

I don't believe it does, but it seems there is no comforting the homophobes...

Well, the existing argument for conservatives would be that should gay marriage be allowed, the Federal recognition of marriage would therefore be a legal union between two consenting individuals, whether it be an adult and a child, and adult and an animal... Therefore, banning gay marriage governs traditional Biblical views of marriage.

However, liberal views (mine included) are that since children and animals do not have the capacity to agree to such a union, it should not apply. Therefore, gay marriage should be allowed. To go further, some would argue that in order to 'save' marriage, we should be banning divorce, as it is the leading cause in destroying the unions physically, according to legislation anyway.

Therefore, in no way does banning gay marriage protect the institution of marriage. In fact, it undermines it by not allowing two loving, consenting, adult individuals to share a legal union.

By the same logic that dictates that if guns are outlawed that all firearm-related crime will instantly cease. In other words, it doesn't.

I suppose by now we have all heard the arguments.

"What next, farm animals?", (inset slippery slope rhetoric here)

"If gays can marry, then marriage is cheapened!", regardless of the rising divorce rate yada, yada...

In the end, I have yet to see any convincing evidence that this attempted ban is anything more than the flailing of a class of people outraged at the state of our society but with no idea how to address the REAL causes of our problems or any meaningful issue so they choose one pet peeve and ride it into the ground.

I do not think that it does. I have heard no argument that even remotely demonstrates that preventing homosexual marriage will protect heterosexual marriage.

banning sodddomites from marriage protects the Holy institution. it protects us all from teh wrath of the Almighty as happened to Soddom.

First, "banning same-sex marriage" sounds to me like banning 'canine cats' and 'feline dogs'. The word "marriage" has a long-standing definition in society and law - part of that definition includes the concept of a relationship between a man and a woman. You have to redefine the word to make the statement of the question.

Second, the whole purpose of having the institution protected and encouraged by law is that the creation and training of the next generation of humans is the essence of the survival of the nation, society and species. Pretty much everybody has observed that the best environment for producing and raising the next generation is in a stable home with the mother and father. This is really the only reason government recognizes and sanctions marriage at all. (A case could be made that it also protects women from poverty and problems related to men not taking responsibility for children they have fathered.)

So, my analysis would be: redefining marriage to include other kinds of relationships means that we as a society now believe that encouraging the raising of the next generation in stable homes with a mother and father is NO LONGER more important than giving special legal sanction and monetary benefits to any two (or more?) people who chose to live together and share expenses. (I might ask what important role do these relationships have in society that justifies special legal protection and financial benefits? I would even suggest that long-term loving relationships - like parent-child or life-long friendship - which have no sexual interaction may be more beautiful and noble than sexual partnerships and therefore more deserving of societal benefits and recognition.)

Finally - marriage as a legal institution is not about how or who someone loves or lusts after or about giving or getting sexual gratification. It is about a particular institution that has great value in society for the raising of the next generation (and, truth be told, the civilizing of men by women). Redefining the institution to include other relationships takes away from the significance of marriage in providing these important societal functions.

it protect the children from WRONG examples...children , the UPMOST importance....

It's because homosexuals want the same license form as the heterosexuals and this would make it inclusive to different types of marriage. What they need to do is propose a separate license for homosexuals only. It would state right on the license, homosexual marriage license. This way heterosexuals won't be able to say that homosexual marriage is the same type of marriage.