I think you just summarized the flaws in the "opposition's" argument from A to Z. This is why their position is invalid.
Good post.
It really is sad you continue to deny the very basics in introducing a new law and supporting it with facts to support your argument to change the law.
Lesson #1 Traditional marriage has been between a man and woman throughout the history of this country. It is a fact not a fallacy.
Lesson #2 Laws passed in other countries are inconsequential since we do not live under a world government. We use our own Constitution and require people like you who want to change the law to back it up with a factual argument. That is the logical fallacy of your side since you have failed repeatedly to do so.
Lesson #3 It is not a fallacy to vote as a majority on a ballot issue. The very fact you cannot understand that simply shows you do not understand how state government functions. The fallacy is for officials to
deny the vote once the signatures were given by the people to vote on the law. You really need to do a little research on what propositions are and how they are lawful.
Lesson #4 It is a slippery slope argument and a factual one when you claim it is a "rights" issue to allow gay marriage. If you call it a rights issue it is a fallacy to believe you can restrict other alternative lifestyles when they use the same argument you are making. A "rights" argument does not end with homosexuality.
#5 is the only one where you are correct and an important point when you read further down...
Until you can provide factual studies not based on filled out unsurpervised questionaires that actually prove a genetic link that you claim exists, you have no basis to change the law to only narrowly allow gay marriage while excluding all other alternative lifestyles when you cannot even prove it isn't a choice which flies in the face of what we know of people who live one way then change their mind decades later or go to jail and engage in homosexual sex after being lifelong heterosexuals or finally, how some church groups have people who claimed to be gay only to be "cured". These are real life examples not theories or flawed studies. Its funny how so many people on your side flock to someone who comes out of the closet in their adult life but I wonder what you say to the people who claim they are gay only to renounce it later in life. Would you support their decision as well?
Its why this fails every single time it is brought forth to let the people decide. They understand you have no basis other than your
belief in homosexuality being something you are born with and as #5 correctly points out,
belief is
not a argument to change the law.
Civil unions are the compromise for everyone but the zealotry your side has in pretending gay marriage is equal to heterosexual marriage without evidence to support it will only result in more failed votes by the people.