You are arguing about things I didn't say, after quoting my post.
No I covered things you did say, and also went into things you didn't say. So what?
Sticking to the social aspect of the argument rather than the strawman ringers:
Marriage involves a certain level of acceptance by society. As a general rule, society accepts that the married individuals are "off the market" sexually, and are exclusive to each other; others are supposed to keep their hands and etc to themselves.
You are incorrect on all counts. The idea of them being "off the market" is just what is usually the expectation, though there are swingers who are married. Marriage does not mean the same thing to all people. It is a contract. The fact that swingers can be married does not mean society is endorsing swingers by letting them get married.
Society treats the married couple and their children as a family, as a fundamental building block of the greater society. It is assumed by society that the married couple will raise their children and see to it that they learn society's norms and values and do not casually violate them too often.
Where do you live, Pleasantville? That's not how society is. Society operates on us not putting each others actual interests at risk, not in instilling universal norms. They're not the same from family to family, nor are the majority of families organized in the traditional way you describe, for better or worse.
You have to understand that society operates quasi-independently of the law. If you made a law today making gay marriage legal, it will not make married gays ACCEPTED BY SOCIETY as a married couple, because a majority still oppose that issue.
Yes that's true, but it contradicts the rest of your argument. Most gays don't want to get married to be accepted, they want to be treated equally under the law and have equal access to marriage.
At this point in time it would likely INCREASE the fracture between mainstream society and gays because mainstream society would be P!**ed-off at having it shoved down their throats.
That's exactly what happened for other civil rights advances tht the majority opposed (all of them that I recall) huh?
In fact the ONLY way you can force society to accept gay marriage when a majority oppose it, is exactly thus: BY FORCE. That is, using the force of law to tell everyone "you are required to treat this gay couple as a married couple in all regards, whether you agree with it or not... fail to do so and the LAW will punish you for discrimination and hate crimes."
Only in the sense of legal rights. Churches and religious organizations are separate and there should never be grounds to sue churches for discrimination that applies to government conduct. Churches should be able to exclude anybody for any reason, good or bad.
This whole allowing gays to get married by force is necessary because it will show the majority that society will not be any worse off because of it, some people will merely be happier for it.
People don't like it when these sorts of things are shoved down their throats against their will.
It has nothing to do with them. They have no stake in the matter.
If the day comes when you have a large majority in favor, social acceptance will be more achievable. I'm not saying that makes any difference in terms of right or wrong, or whether I personally would accept it or not, but speaking socially it matters.
It will come, but at the cost of equality deferred over blind devotion to the false value of democracy. Your argument would apply very well to the South seceding because the majority of them wanted to... actually, yes they should have been allowed to, but not for that reason alone.
