Kelric, you gave a thoughful response to your side. And I'll give you credit for bearing in mind that I am ranting here, which means I'm going to be sarcastic in my own unique way.
Honestly, one motivation I have here is for us to laugh at how absurd our own side can be at times when discussing these issues.
The serious argument behind all this is just why is there so much emotion put behind this issue. Yes I can understand why Gays do so, but what about non-gays?
And yes plenty of shit is said and done on both sides. But so much attention is given to the shit of the opposition to gay marriage, I don't see much honest discussion about the shit the pro-gay marriage side does.
So on that account, I don't think I have to answer much of what you posted. If you really want me to answer to your questions and arguments, then I'll oblige.
This is somewhat of a tricky issue on many levels; not least of which involving the constrasting perspectives of Positive and Negative freedoms. Almost all arguments in favor of allowing gay and interracial marriages are founded upon the logic of Negative freedom; wheras arguments against gay and at that time interracial marriages are/were usually founded on the logic of Positive freedom.And yet, back in the 50's, people of all races could get married under the law. I realize that interracial marriages weren't allowed in some places... but do you agree that this change to those laws relating to marriage was a step in the right direction? Allowing people to marry those whom they love, regardless of race/ethnicity? I'd say this is a *very* good analogy to the question of gay marriage.
Of course it's past midnight, and certainly not the best time for me to be articulating this issue at great length. Not least of which because my Ni is out of whack due to a stressful work week.
So hopefully tomorrow at the soonest I'll add onto this.