Marriage equals figure wearing pants plus figure wearing dress

Overview
There is a bumper sticker popular among the anti-gay crowd which can be summarized thusly:
 * MARRIAGE = [male restroom icon] + [female restroom icon]
 * So... gay marriage is okay as long as one spouse wears a dress?
 * And is it not a marriage if a man marries a woman who is wearing pants?

Further Discussion
Nah, it basically means Marriage is the joining of a Man and a Woman, not a Man and a Man, or a Woman and a Woman (Or, ummm, one wearing a dress). That, and once Same-Sex marriages occur, Sexual Segregation follows, then comes the floodgates of "Why can't I marry my Cat?" or "Why can't I marry my computer? It's shiny!" and, of course, Homosexuality IS NOT purely genetic, the scientists who looked for the "Gay Gene" say they have no conclusive evidence of it being genetic yet, but many say it IS highly influenced by experiences, sorta like, Trauma for a soldier after a war, or a Phobia of spiders.

This is a very silly rebuttal. First of all, it doesn't address the narrowness of using "figure wearing pants" to mean "man" (what, only men wear pants?) and "figure wearing a dress" to mean "woman" (never heard of drag queens?).

Actually, it goes beyond narrowness. The use of those specific icons is clearly meant to send the additional message that "men wear the pants, and women should wear dresses" – presumably whilst pregnant in the kitchen; as a sentiment, it is authoritarian to a T.

Now, looking at the individual claims:


 * "...once Same-Sex marriages occur, Sexual Segregation follows, then comes the floodgates of "Why can't I marry my Cat?" or "Why can't I marry my computer? It's shiny!"
 * The "floodgates" argument in general has already been refuted.
 * Dunno about you crazy conservatives, but nobody I know wants to marry their cat. Yes, I have heard of uber-geeks marrying their computer, or expressing the desire to do same, but lack of legal recognition doesn't seem to have stopped them. (For one thing, computers don't generally have much use for health insurance or survivor benefits.)
 * And, oh yeah – remind me again just why it would be so terrible if we did allow people to marry their cats, computers, goldfish, or whatever? What would it mean to marry a member of a nonsentient species, anyway (assuming anti-gay types don't already fall into this category)? What would the rules and expectations be? Why is this possibility even being regarded as a serious threat? You need to define the purpose of marriage before you can say that any particular usage of it is either good or bad.
 * Why does sexual segregation follow same-sex marriages? It seems to me that the opposite is true, for reasons which should be obvious (unless you're talking about requiring all marriages to be homosexual). What do you mean by "sexual segregation", anyway?
 * "and, of course, Homosexuality IS NOT purely genetic, the scientists who looked for the "Gay Gene" say they have no conclusive evidence of it being genetic yet, but many say it IS highly influenced by experiences..."
 * Being gay is a choice? refuted – it's an irrelevant question.
 * Being gay is influenced by experiences? One's choice of spouse is also influenced by experiences. What's your point?