What I am seeing in your arguments is
1) the people who are fighting against Prop 8, and it's results, are trying to force the rest of the world to be 'just like them' and they are anti 'the traditional qualities of family, church, God' etc.

As I see it, these people are fighting for the right to be treated just like the rest of society and viewed as part of society. You say marriage is not a 'right' - and depending on your traditions (there's that word again) I can see how you could think that - and if a church does not wish to perform the Rite of Marriage for a same sex couple, then that is its choice, but for a governmental entity to refuse to allow two people who meet all criteria, by law, for entering into a binding contract that will afford them the recognition of being a single unit (ie a family) in the eyes of society is discrimination.

2) Marriage is a traditional behavior and we can't change traditions

There are many MANY traditions that we no longer follow/observe, or have changed throughout the years, so traditions CAN be changed - so your argument fails because part of it scans to 'false'.

So, where's the logic? Neither of these arguments seem to have a logical 'bent' to them - but please, feel free to bring it to my attention.



>>
>>And I have yet to see any logic to any of your arguments yet, including this one. And gee, nice attempt at an assumption.
>
>I am sorry but I am not in business of selling logics. You don't see it, so good for you. I suspect that any point that I could address on this issue you would perceive as having no logics. Correct? When someone disagrees with your points (make no mistake I do not represent fringe group here), it does not mean that logics do not exist there. It may just indicate different kind of logics, not one that you use/like, so 'no logics' claim cannot be true.