"Marriage" isn't sacred. It's a social construct, not a religious one. That's not opinion; that's global history.

Almost all of the marriage legal tomfoolery comes from nitpicking about the definition, or is based on a particular religion's interpretation (read: subset) of marriage.

We absolutely have laws in the USA which provide benefits to one particular subset of marriages. That's similar to endorsing only some religions, or any other social subset of humans. You make a particular social choice, we give you kickbacks. Pick another (including no choice at all!), tough rocks, you don't get squat. Even though your choice doesn't harm others, it doesn't fall in line with what we've deemed "good".

Which is bollocks.

Any law which gives a benefit or a punishment for being a particular race, nationality, gender, social group (religion being one, knitting club being another), or choosing or not choosing a socially-recognized life partner is bollocks. Affirmative action is bollocks. State benefits for marriage is bollocks.

Tax-exempt status for religious institutions is bollocks. Religion is the only selective qualifying category listed under 501(c)(3). The rest are beneficial to the whole of society, not a subset (though the sporting inclusion in 501(c)(e) is arguably not in line as well, but also sneaks in under the very broad "charitable" definition). I digress.

Recognizing same-sex or other particular subsets of marriage and giving them the same benefits of male-female marriage doesn't solve the problem. What about group marriages, shouldn't they get the same rights? "Oh, no...we don't recognize group marriages or polygamy, those are wrong..." Same logic core as being against same-sex marriage though, 'eh? Though I bet most of you are a bit more squeamish about saying polygamy is kosher even if you're for same-sex marriage... Abolish the whole mess of recognizing any subset, and you eliminate the legal problem.

IAAAudio Engineer...he says that a 10 dB difference sounds to human ears like a doubling of the level. That's just wrong. Human hearing is logarhythmic, which is why the decibel scale makes so much sense. 80 dB sounds like double 40 dB.

No, the article is correct, you're completely wrong. Phons and sones are measurements of perceived loudness, and are defined based on experimental results that a 10dB sound level increase corresponds to an approximate doubling in perceived loudness.

"Normal conversation" is about 60dB. An F/A-18 takeoff is just short of 120dB. The takeoff is a helluva lot "louder" than double that of normal conversation. About 50 times louder.