Then why do you need to work so hard to convince girls to become stay-at-home moms? Why are you afraid they will choose professional careers over raising large families, or choose lesbianism?
The roles of wife, mother and homemaker are not only consistent with natural law, but are actually the foundation of the natural family, and therefore, human society.
So you want special consideration for things consistent with natural law? I know this is a tired argument, but people used to say slavery was justified by common law. And abolitionist literature was banned in many states. Sometimes, search warrants were written up for books. I don't see any reason to give your viewpoint any special advantages over other viewpoints. If it really is consistent with natural law, why isn't it strong enough to stand on its own?
To compare the honorable roles of wife and mother to a life of same sex sodomy
a) many honorable wives/mothers practice opposite-sex sodomy inside their marriages (oral and anal intercourse isn't exactly unknown to most women)
b) why is the role of mother inconsistent with a life of same-sex sodomy? If a heterosexual sodomite single mother can raise a family, why can't a homosexual sodomite in a long-term relationship?
I don't have to believe gay people are equally good parents, I just have to believe that they are within their rights to raise children, and thus the same protections (recognized by SCOTUS) would apply to them as to heterosexual families.
The single, sole point which distinguishes a "homosexual" from anyone else is the methods and orifices used to obtain sexual gratification.
Wrong. There are faithful, married, heterosexual men who take it up the backside (don't ask how unless you want to find out) and women of all sexual orientations can and do enjoy at least three orifices (there is also the urethra, but I'm guessing not many people meddle with that, although some do).
The difference is only in the gender of the people they are romantically interested in.
That's it, there is no more to be said. Someone needs a club for that? In high school?
What distinguishes blacks from whites? Their skin color? Do they need a club for that? Of course not. But does the first amendment guarantee them that right. Yeah. Whether homoseuxality is a choice or people are born with it (or a little of both) either way they have a right to form their own club.
Your arguments have degenerated into straw man stuff. I can't argue with someone who doesn't follow the regular rules of debate.
As one example you state:
"Then why do you need to work so hard to convince girls to become stay-at-home moms? Why are you afraid they will choose professional careers over raising large families, or choose lesbianism?"
You're the one who brought up the theoretical future homemakers' club, not me.
You're nuts. Find a fellow fantasy believer to play act with. I like nothing better than to sensibly discuss differing points of view.
What you're doing is presenting an argument that I DIDN'T MAKE and then "defeating" it.
Another thing you did was use my "natural law" phrase and then turn it into "common law" which are entirely different.
You basically say that any viewpoint is equal to every other viewpoint. If you really held that view, you wouldn't argue with me.
Well, I don't say that every viewpoint is equal. Mine is right, and yours is wrong.
And until you grow up and learn how to debate like an adult, I'm not going to waste my precious time with you. I've got a lot more interesting people to debate with.