If you want to discuss my contribution please talk to what I actually stated, “civil unions”.
Only heterosexuals can attempt a true marriage.
Therefore even if gays or states call their unions “marriage” that doesn’t make it so and your “theology of marriage” arguments fail as essentially irrelevant.
If you could stretch the blinkers to understand that “civil unions” primarily establish legal affine relationships (like adoption) rather than primarily legally approve and limit sex … the homophobia will largely recede. If your couple loudly proclaim that they are intending to simulate marriage so they can have lots of guilt free sex and adopt many children from the state (or engage in turkey basting) then maybe you have a point. I suggest significant numbers of gay couples aren’t interested in doing so.
They are likely merely using the closest legal vehicle available that suits their affine purposes.
So attendance is a prudential/discernment thing.
Where do you get these dogmatic universals from? What does this even mean?
Homosexuality like heterosexuality is an orientation.
An orientation is no more narcissistic than a love of food, of posting on CAF, of always being right or having the last word. Even OCD could be said to be “narcissistic” if your reasoning was correct.
Seems much like child-filled heterosexual marriages, gay unions, living singly (better to marry than burn etc), remarriages or indeed any lifestyle choice. Just sounds like set conclusions in search of trite, platitudinous justifications to me sorry.