Me in the green BOLDI agree to disagree.
Its fine to disagree, doesn't do much if you cannot explain your position however. Let me make is simpler for you, a gay man has the same rights and restrictions as I, a hetero, have. EQUAL .
Tell that to infertile heterosexual couples, heterosexual couples who choose not to have kids, and heterosexual couples too elderly to have kids. They can all marry.
Policies are not made for the exceptions, they are made for the general rule... who is to say that advances in science cannot allow fertility? That those who choose not to have children suddenly choose to have some. Giving the right to the elderly female and male will not erase the lines as presently drawn and open up the dread of negative unintended, some of which are foreseeable, consequences.
How has same sex marriage changed anyone's marriage?
We, as you know, haven't really had the time to study it yet. But we do know that once you erase the line of tradition, the walls holding back the floods of chaos will soon coming crashing in. Who will we then say no to? Anything and everything will be allowed...what would be the legal basis of denying anybody the right to marriage to anybody, or in some cases, or anything? That clearly would be chaos, think about that critically. Society cannot withstand such assaults for very long.
So far the basis of your argument is an appeal to tradition fallacy and your personal opinion. Not exactly an "educated" means of debate. I would love to take you on.
Tradition is a proven entity, so comes up ACES... what you got in your deck of fallacies that might beat mine? Experimentation is better than a proven winner? Not so good...so what ya got?