Unless you're asexual, you're not going against your sexual preferences by marrying a heterosexual woman.
Some people are in fact asexual, and prefer no sex. Others may prefer not to be married, even if they do wish to have sex with people of the opposite gender.
These are both preferences; what makes them less deserving of protection than a preference for gay marriage over straight marriage?
I understand that some people are asexual, which is why I mentioned that. Asexual people get a raw deal, there's no question about that.
I'm all for eliminating marriage subsidies, but let's take it one step at a time and recognize that there are literally millions of people in the United States who are being discriminated against by the state.
Saying that gay and lesbian individuals shouldn't be extended the rights enjoyed by the rest of the adult population of the United States because the entire institution is unfair misses the point.
Some people are in fact asexual, and prefer no sex. Others may prefer not to be married, even if they do wish to have sex with people of the opposite gender.
These are both preferences; what makes them less deserving of protection than a preference for gay marriage over straight marriage?