Yawn. k?

This has zero to do with sexual freedom. The original gay rights movement did. Then this came around, it mimicked that. Got shot down by the vast majority of the nation. Then it turned to about attraction. Then love. The entire gambit of positive emotions has been exhausted during this nonissue.

It's like early in the marriage debacle the right was all "no" as always. Arguing happened over what it was called. Gays said they didn't care what it was called, they wanted the rights a marriage gives. If that was the case why isn't civil union which gives the benefits enough?

It turned out that wasn't enough. They actually did care. They actually did want marriage. It was never about rights, it was strictly about looks. It was a vanity thing in a weird way.

I probably should have said this earlier while you write up your ad hominems and straw men; I'm fine with gays marrying. I do not give a shit. That's the thing: I don't give a fuck. I care far more about states rights than this.

Your own comment shows the ridiculousness of itself;

...sexual freedom tends compensatingly to increase.

I can't wait until kintype rights.

I can't wait until hobophile rights.

I can't wait until the like 3 philes-before-pedophile gets rights.

What's next?

I can't wait until pedophile rights.

A child can't consent!

Below I'm not arguing for it. I'm questioning the bullshit "logic" that is 100% of the time used.

According to who? Those are laws from the 60s and 70s iirc at the latest and like 10s/20s/30s before. You know. When emotional maturity gained through puberty was at a much older age than it is currently?

How about males and females having the same AoC yet females emotionally mature 5+ years before their male counterparts?

The entirety of this garbage needs a complete, exhaustive, and thorough overhaul. Because about 0% of it fits with the reasons given.

I am fine with gay people getting married. Just fucking be honest about that shit and stop making so much goddamned annoying noise about it.