Your questions are posed in a hostile "when did you stop beating your wife?" fashion.
If you personally perceive no benefit to yourself does that mean you are prepared to deny human rights to another person? For example, slave owners perceived no benefit to ending slavery. Therefore, should our country have outlawed "the aggressive abolitionist agenda to proceed"? Perhaps imprison abolitionists, legally forbid them to marry or own property or publish newspapers?
Your message seems to indicate that YOU are the ultimate model for all good and decent persons, i.e. we must all behave and think like you do. "What, if anything, is GOOD about YOUR agenda" for American society?
What's so good about your agenda of pushing gay marriage?
Stop hiding from the polygammy issue. Why do you think your marriage defintion must stop at any two persons? Why not three or five.
Stop hiding.
Oh, is that what you infer?
Frankly I think it's a little hysterical to equate denying homosexuals the PRIVILEGE (NOT the right) to marry with slavery.
And honey, I don't have to prove a thing. I'm not the one lobbying to change marriage law across the country, YOU are. Sick, to me, but hey, your mileage may vary.
Again, until and unless you can show an advantage to ordinary everyday VOTING conservative Christians who have resoundingly rejected homosexual marriage and the homosexual agenda all across the country, you might as well pi$$ up a rope.
Again, I'm not holding my breath. I don't get hostile until people whose lifestyle I reject as perverted and sick get in my face about it.
Marriage isn't a human right.