Like I said, "Any good reply can be condensed. Condense it."
You don't really want a discussion, you want to drive the interlocutor away by making it too much trouble for them to engage you.
You just proved my point.
How would you know? By your own profession, you didn't read the reply, and now you are baselessly speculating on my motives? Content dictates length, and you didn't read the content. I started out short, but you keep asserting things that aren't true and require correction. you also conflate the issue with irrelevant tangents. It takes less than five minutes to read, but it's abundantly clear that you want to have voice in the conversations while putting in no effort to support it.
I did the work for you. I pulled some relevant commentary and history that you clearly have never researched, and I even avoided making you read any large portions of it.
The fact of the matter is, you are uninformed and ill-equipped to be in this debate and that is why my replies to you grew in length. They started out short, but grew to compensate for your ignorance. Now you have the gall to treat it like some conspiracy to prevent you from replying? You are so pathetic that five minutes of reading halts your ability to reply? What a joke.
I've had a change of heart, so here's the condensed version:
Yada yada yada.
Like I said, if you had something to say, you could boil it down to something quick and easy for everyone to comprehend. Instead, you hid behind a wall of words.
You didn't really want a discussion, you found a way that usually works to avoid it.
You're a success.
But I don't think most people bother to read your long-winded, overblown, bloated essays.
It is based on the idea that being gay is a sin and we should not legally allow such a sin to take place. However being married if the woman is not a virgin is a sin so the argument holds no true ground. And losing your virginity is almost always certainly a choice whereas being gay might not be. As a christian I think that the argument against gay marriage is stupid and it should be legal.
If (and it's a huge "if") it could be shown that children of gay parents are severely disadvantaged in some way, that would be a point against gay marriage. But we already let crack dealers marry alcoholics and have children, don't we?