Too bad you're lying then. Not a single reputable scientific study shows the sexual preference of parents matter, only that there are two. You claim you trust science, but in reality you don't. Remember the time you posted an article that you thought said Global warming was a hoax but actually said it was real? Not a good reason to trust that you trust science.Why do you always have to assign an emotion to someone? You're projecting. I trust science, which says that the most optimal environment for a child is with their biological parents in a low conflict household. There is an intrinsic genetic need for people to know where they come from.
And gays can have a biological parent in a low conflict household. Nothing is stopping that except for discriminatory laws.
Name a single right of yours that is being trampled by gay marriage. Try. Name ONE. You can't because there are no such rights being trampled.All these special rights that gays are demanding are now trampling on my rights and the rights of others. A moral barrier has been breached.
Once again, you refuse to apply your criteria. Heteros that engage in what you call deviancy are still allowed to be married under your criteria. That makes no sense. The only reason you are against gay marriage on sexual deviancy grounds is not because of sexual deviancy, it's because you're a bigot. If you were consistent, you'd apply the same grounds to deny marriage to heteros. But you admitted you are not consistent. The real reason you are against gays is because you're against gays. Not because of sexual activity, but some other reason you aren't willing to share.Heteros fit the normal biological criteria. Doesn't mean they aren't sinning when they perform deviant sexual acts between each other. If homosexual sex was rational and normal than evolution would have adapted by now and found a use for it.
You claimed that gays shouldn't be allowed to get married because they practice sexual deviancy. Therefore, if we applied your criteria, straights who do the same should be barred. The fact that they can engage in non-sexual deviancy is irrelevant here because your argument dictates that sexual deviancy in itself is grounds to deny marriage. The fact that you are now turning on your own argument is quite amusing as you have nothing to stand on.So when a hetero couple is married the only form of sex they ever engage in is sodomy? Oh hey that's a strawman. Not interested in those. I understand you're just really passionate about gay sex. We can agree to disagree.
You can be declared a women with hormones before a gender change and therefore be allowed.As male I can't join an all female club.
Is that why pagan handfasting that allowed gay unions that predates the city state of Greece doesn't quality? Always has only starts from Greece and that all time before doesn't count? Do you realize just how bad you look right now?Clubs, institutions, ect usually are defined by criteria set. Usually numerous criteria. Marriage = man + woman. Always has.
And there you go with the bureaucratic mess. We allowed interracial marriage even though they weren't a majority. What's your point? Besides, demographics alone suggest you will lose this fight. Hatred for gays is dying out. 35 and younger have an overwhelming tolerance and support for gay marriage. Thus, you really want to go with a state's right voting where time ensures that every state will have gay marriage? You haven't even tried to think this through.No reason to change it to appease 2% of the population's demands. So let the states decide. Once that vote is made, enshrine it in the state's constitution so it can never be challenged and never be changed. Like minded people can start move to state's that have like minded values, which include religious, social and economic. We'll see which states thrive and which states don't. You guys can have all the welfare recipients too, since according to Nancy Pelosi and Brack Obama they create jobs.
I'm just reaffirming what people already believe about you. You make up your own criteria when you feel like it, disregard it when it's not supporting you, fail to think through your arguments and squirm when logic is applied to your claims.You're going to have to come up with a better strawman than that. Our conversation is already boring. For any future replies feel free to reference this post and my entire post history to find out my positions on sham pretend gay marriage.