I'm glad you bring up right and wrong. Once again, that is a religious value, the first amendment CLEARLY states that the government can not mandate a religion. Not all religions view being gay as being wrong. So once again, you are wanting to dictate YOUR religious views on other people.
And even that is irrelevant. All of your arguments have been suited to making being gay illegal. Being gay is NOT illegal. So unless you believe that gays won't be engaging in gay sex unless married all of your points about gay sex being bad for society are nullified in this thread. Allowing gay marriage simply is not going to lead to more gay sex. In fact as most guys can attest being married leads to less sex, or at least it seems that way.
On the argument that children are better off with no parents than with gay parents. What a stupid claim. You have just dismissed everyone who chooses to be gay as a person who can't be a good role model to children and that's just silly. Here's a nice little study that shows that isn't true in the least. Now this particular study relates to gay women parents, but gay is gay.
http://www.livescience.com/6073-chil...dies-show.html
Gee there is a shock, the study indicates that the parents sexuality really didn't affect their grades nor their behavior.
Here is another article written by a noted psychologist pointing out that gay doesn't affect parenting skills.
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archive...f-gay-parents/
And even if you do try to make that argument, why do you single out gay, short of actual abuse we let shitty parents raise their own children all the time. I could list spend all day posting links to shitty straight parents, yet I don't see you or anyone else clamoring to not allow them to marry.
Oh, and of course this ignores the fact that just as there are straight married couples who have no desire to have children, there are gay couples who have no desire to have children, and so there isn't even a question about what kind of parents they would be, even if the state had the right to ask the question.
EVEN IF THE STATE HAD THE RIGHT TO ASK THE QUESTION.
Which leads me to my final point.
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Ninth Amendment of course.
And if we correlate the ninth with
Loving where marriage was stated to be
one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Now clearly some would like to pretend that that ruling ONLY applies to race, but that is just not so. All men and women are born with an inherent right to marriage. Now that isn't the same thing as saying they have a right to a government provided marriage license, but as long as the rule of law requires one to be considered the government is compelled, nay they MUST allow anyone to marry any other adult they wish.
Now , some of have suggested that I need to be debating every point that OCA makes and providing evidence that hat he says isn't true. But I can't do that in many cases because I simply don't deny that some of the things he says are true.
For instance, his point about homosexual sex being more likely to lead to sexually transmitted diseases, that is true. But pointing that out in this thread misses a couple points. The first point being that we obviously have the right to take part in high risk activities. Whether those activities seem icky to others or not. BUT the more important point to THIS thread is this.
Stating that gay sex leads to more STDs is irrelevant to the question of whether gay marriage should be legal, UNLESS you can show that legalizing gay marriage will lead to more gay sex. Obviously no one can prove that.
So as the reader can plainly see, I don't have to prove that what OCA says is untrue in order to defend legalizing gay marriage.