Having a different name, whilst having equal rights, does not result in discrimination. Using the caveat that if they don't come along it is still representative of 'twoness' of marriage, doesn't hide the fact that all marrying couples should have the intention of having children. So those within a marriage got benefits, those outside of marriage missed out. No "middle ages culture" permitted same-sex marriage. I'd like to be charitable enough to say I feel your pain, but knowing as I do how much pain you have knowingly inflicted on homosexuals all your life I admit I feel nothing but contempt. When I ask them about marriage, they almost always indicate that it is for them the beginning of a new family unit open to welcoming children.
I always hated the term 'marriage equality'.
How same-sex marriage could ruin civilisation
I am yet to hear why we need to change the definition of marriage to somehow solve discrimination. Marriage has evolved over s yrs. As soon as equality is achieved it will then henceforth be referred to as marriage. Try plus years it has been a religious institution. It's simply the will of the people and would be no different whether you're arguing for or against same sex marriage. Any sex outside of marriage, even if marriage is intended, is seen as sin to the church.
Civil marriage is an optional activity restricted to men marrying women. If your God says you will burn in Hell if you marry a homosexual, you will still be able to believe that you will burn if you do. Sadly, not everyone agrees. The intolerance of the tolerance enforcers knows no bounds. You're conflating two different things there - and particular argument from the debate, and who can participate in the debate.