>>28 I don't think you're expressing your opinion very well.
>Marriage is, according to the dictionary and the universal interpretation of the word, between a male and a female
The first is factually incorrect, and there is no universal definition of any word at all, let alone 'marriage'. Even if it were true, you can't simply cite the dictionary as proof for an argument. It was, after all, only a group of people who wrote the dictionary. It doesn't make it any more valid than what I say. Even if both of the above were true, stating marriage
should be something because marriage
has been something is not valid. It's the Naturalistic Fallacy.
>once we start being so accepting and tolerant of these things, it never ends
You seem to be implying with every change in social acceptance, each subsequent change will be less thought out. This could be true, but you present no backing for this. The subsequent changes you imply will happen also have no backing. It is not correct to assume any change in society means any other change in society is equally as likely to happen. It's easy to cite the most feared changes as proof we shouldn't allow a current one, but not a valid or frankly agreeable argument.
>that's not even mentioning the ridiculous rates of abuse in homosexual relationships
I'll tell you why it's not mentioned, because it's there's no factual backing for that statement. For all I know, it could be true, but that doesn't mean you ca present it without any evidence whatsoever. Personal experience does not count, by the way.
You seem to think legalizing gay marriage will devalue all other discussion around social changes, to the point where we won't be able to distinguish a good change from a bad. You have to explain this, throwing around fearful "what if" scenarios is not an valid point and doesn't contribute to a discussion.
