It's funny because my whole point was that the original argument was a dodge to avoid argumentation. If we can label something as intolerant then we don't have to engage it intellectually.
The difference between you and I is that I used my words to illustrate and explain my point. That's something you seem incapable of doing as you only have an interest in posting emoticons and making short pedantic points. I'm not even sure you're even capable of engaging in a substantive conversation on any intellectual level as I've seen little proof.
So, please go away unless you care to demonstrate an intelligence above and beyond that of a spell checker.
You're playing rhetorical games.Ultimately, the disagreement comes to whether or not we should count homosexuality as a thing that is accepted. This comes back to the point where the burden is on you and Lark to show why it should not be accepted, which I phrased more specifically as showing how it is harmful. This is a request I feel neither of you have met.
The burden of proof is on the group trying to change public policy. If I was trying to reintroduce sodomy laws then, yes, the burden would be on me, but in this case you're trying to get the state to promote a behavior.
It's not a matter that I can't show harm it's that you don't care about the harm I care about. You don't value marriage in the same way I do. You don't value having a mother and father in the same way I do. I think it's pretty harmful for any child to not grow up without a father or mother and the state shouldn't promote behavior that guarantees that and only endorse such behavior with good reason like divorce in the case of abuse.