I'm not going to get locked into a battle of dueling studies. I could point out that the current studies are flawed, but you would simply tell me that they aren't.
To avoid this problem, I based my argument on our Constitution and faith in the majority to govern itself. Unless you can demonstrate that the U.S. Supreme Court has overturned Murphy v. Ramsey, then our government has no obligation to recognize alternate versions of marriage. Blacks and women got the right to vote and considerable protections to ensure their equal civic rights even though they didn't have the right to vote. In both cases, this process was initiated by the legislatures who passed the relevant Constitutional amendments and laws. You could argue that the civil rights amendments were forced on the South through Reconstruction, but the fact remains that Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1875 without coercion. This act barred discrimination in public accommodations. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court saw fit to switch into activist mode and gut this piece of legislation with shameful decisions in 1883 and 1896 -- even though all three civil rights amendments were already in place! This is not to say that same-sex "marriage" is a civil right -- it isn't. This is just to demonstrate that the most fundamental and hard to achieve rights were obtained through the legislative process -- the rule of the majority.
If homosexual advocates can convince American society (or more accurately our representatives) that American citizens ought to be able to legally "marry" those of the same sex, then it will happen. Given that our society seems determined to deprive marriage of meaning (even disregarding the gay agenda), gay-"marriage" advocates will probably have their way.
Edited by Solar Wind, 07 February 2005 - 11:49 PM.