Spake Ake:

The people who believe in conventional marriage, {defined for thousands of years as the joining of one man and one woman} would feel that redefinition was a knee jerk reaction to political correctness and modern minority morality. This redefinition would alter marriage forever and negate their right to a traditional marriage.

Have a care about that 'thousands of years' argument. For 'thousands
of years' the 'majority' you so revere would punish by various means
lawful and unlawful, those who were religious non-conformists. They,
too, spoke of their 'right' to live and raise their children in a
Papist state, or an Anglican country, or a Protestant one, or an
Islamic one, or a Mormon one, a Jewish one, etc. The presence of
non-conformists, or infidels, or Protestants, you see, or the legitimization of the faith of same, you see, reduced the legitimacy of their own faith. Which, of course, is the 'one true' religion.

And somehow, along the way, 'those people' became just a little less
human in the the eyes of the powerful and all-sacred majority. Or
a lot. A little or a lot less deserving of the same rights to 'life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'

Ake, you have yet, in your broken-record rhetoric, shown one
single way in which the marriages of 'traditional marriage'
proponents are reduced in value by those of homosexuals. Not
one.

Your argument seems to be the 'because they say so' tautology.

On the other hand, very good arguments can be made for the
converse...that marriage has a variety of definitions. To
Catholics, for example, it is immutable between living partners.
To Protestants, not so much so. Muslims and Jews have entirely
different rules. Different sovereign states, too, differ on what
makes a marriage.

This has been the case 'for thousands of years.'

I have yet to hear a Catholic seriously claim that Catholic marriages
are diminished by Protestants' allowance for divorce and re-marriage,
except perhaps in the most abstract of moral theologies. Nor have
I ever heard a Catholic argue, with a straight face, that Protestants
who have divorced and remarried while their spouse was still living
ought not be accorded civil recognition of the union as a marriage.
This is even though, in the strictest sense and for religious
purposes, the Church of Rome doesn't recognize the second marriage
as being valid.

The whole argument about 'thousands of years' and the 'rights of
the majority' and 'the diminishing of traditional marriage' is a
subterfuge--- it is, purely and simply the refuge of those who
are looking for a ways to marginalize a group who practice what
Ake likes to call 'the homosexual lifestyle.'