Wibble the first:
And I just can't stand this bit...
Some people's right to marriage = Other people's right to marriage.
What right? Where in hell is the text of US Constitution that guarantees a person a right to marry
Sigh... I'ts not about "right to marriage". It's about equal protection under the law. Here's a fact:
Married people get certain benefits under the law -- tax breaks, hospital visitations, inheritance, and so on.
Did you know this, or does this come as news to you? This fact is what these discussions are basically all about; has been from the start, is now, and will be until the bigots quit squirming. Do you want to pretend you didn't know this, either?

Here's what the heart of the matter is: If people are equal under the law, then all lawfully married people should have the same right to partake of these legal benefits, regardless of whether their spouse is of the same or a different sex as themselves. And that is the bit that's guaranteed in your constitution: All people are equal under the law, with the same legal rights and duties. So, sigh, OK, I suppose this is what I should have said:
"Some people's right to have their marriage recognized in terms of legal benefits = Other people's right to have their marriage recognized in terms of legal benefits"
But honestly: This is too bloody long to fit on a demonstration placard. That doesn't matter, though, because in the context, it is fucking obvious to anyone reasonably fluent in English that this is what the shorthand "Equal right to marriage!" on the placards means. Pretending not to understand this is disingenious in the extreme. But you've quibbled about at the details of this for about five or six posts each from you and me, forcing me to gradually re-write the simple slogan into this fucking huge multiply-qualified definition... You should be ashamed of yourself: Either for being such a dunce that you didn't get what any adult who's ever heard of the question knows, but more probably for just plain quibbling, even though you did know exactly what's at issue.


Wibble the second:
Finally, Scott and others have pointed out that homosexuals can get donor sperm or donor eggs and have children (those making that argument have either failed to acknowledge or refuse to accept that this is different from the usual and customary manner in which heterosexual marriages produce children).
See? Isn't this what I said several exchanges earlier in this conversation? It is all about the sex, the straight hetero children-producing sex.


Wibble wibble wibble:
...adopt...experiment...long-term effects...a father and a mother...experiment...yaddayaddayadda
Remember that bit I mentioned about fundie and conspiracy whackjobs ranting on and on and on into ever more intricate detail, squirming and weaselling and shifting the goalposts way out of the arena, never acknowledging that on the main big large actual real question, they've been refuted, proven wrong, and lost the discussion long before they got into this silly level of minutiae...?

Newsflash: Fags and hags have been raising kids for ages already.

So guess what you're coming off as here.

Again.