“A gay man has the right to marry either a straight/gay woman any time he wants just as gay woman can marry gay/straight man anytime she wants. THAT is equal protection under the law.”
Except for the disequality in you offering them mates he or she would not want to commit to.
I mean, what if we outlawed the Baptist faith? You still have the right to worship as Catholic or Mormon or Muslim, so that’s equal to the Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, right?
“Being able to marry a “house cat” is a new thing, just as man/man or woman/woman marriage is a new thing.”
Not really. It’s the same thing with the same definition and the same body of precedent in law to establish the boundaries and responsibilities. Just more prefixes on the name blocks (Mr, Mrs, Ms).
“Additionally, if gay marriage is OK, so is plural marriages of any configuration.”
Based on what? The Bible? If you really want to legislate the bible and their multiple marriages, that’s going to go for the Muslims and the Mormons, too.
“Legally 10 people could all be married. That is equal protection under the law.”
But that would actually be a new thing, dipshit.
“Libs providing anecdotal information about a gay couple here or there that has been together for 20 years, etc. is useless.”
Okay.
“Study after study confirms that man/man relationships are extremely transient.”
Do you know how many marriages in Las Vegas don’t last? It’s not a reason to deny the legality of marriage.
“The issue is that libs continually try to change language to suit their goals.”
That’s why they use ‘marriage’ because of all the responsibilities and privileges already connected to it.
“Marriage has been between males and females for the entire definition of the word.”
THe Catholic Church used to have a marriage ceremony for two gay noblemen.