Of course, it does seems unusual to think that, in the creation and defense of opinion, one would insert a contrasting perspective to his own as a final remark on what he's sofar offered. Possible, certainly - but less than likely, given what you've authored in-thread and others.
So, while the editing mistake is mine, I think the point remains.
It was only in the context of your final statement did I offer a critique on your offered (third party) language.
Like you, I've done a lot of research on the topic of homosexuality as it applies to legal and sociological integration into contemporary political theory - what's more, I've tried to be honest in how I've looked at it from a Judeo-Christian theological mindset. So, I've done my homework on the issue as well, Peguy. Don't presume to have a superior theoretical mindset on the basis of quibbling disagreement. That's certainly not objective, nor is it ultimately helpful.
So, it's your call. If you wish to end your participation here, then so be it.
To re-state my earlier point, the 'normalization' of homosexuality is no more a threat to cultural institution of marriage than, say, suffrage for women was to the political process.
We can pick and choose ideals that are subjectively unsavory to our personal belief system without offering a slippery slope conjecture on their ultimate social contribution to the gradual destruction of American tradition.
That's just silly.