I reiterate:

Even conceding your point, that men and women are different—and that heterosexual unions give children better upbringings than homosexual unions—it still makes sense to allow and encourage SSM because it is still better than single parenthood or orphanages.

Allowing SSM will result in more people signing onto the responsibilities that come with a marriage contract, including those that pertain to two-parent child-rearing.

Precisely!

Prop 8 doesn't even pass the least rigorous review (rational basis). Subjected to heightened review (intermediate or strict scrutiny), it doesn't stand a chance. The government has no compelling interest in examining gender when issuing marriage licenses.

If Prop 8 is struck down everybody wins. The constitution is upheld, liberty is expanded, families win, and kids win. Marriage is a civilizing factor, and it will be taken up by more citizens. SSM is a conservative win.

No problem. Here's the argument again discussing only homosexuals:

Parenting studies from both sides of the debate are trying to establish a rational basis for granting or denying these individuals—or couples comprised of these individuals—the right to raise children (and, although it's a somewhat separate argument, committing to their couple-hood and parenthood via marriage).

However, even if a study showed beyond the shadow of a doubt that same-sex couples raised children more poorly than opposite-sex couples on average, my guess is that they would still be proven to raise them better than a single parent (or orphanage). Thus, the gov would actually have a rational basis to ALLOW homosexual parentage and marriage, since this gives more kids a better chance at success.

(Opening the rational basis argument wider, the gov has more rational basis to deny single people, convicted criminals, drug addicts, etc., the right to parentage than they ever would same-sex couples.)

By your logic, "curve balls" would include homosexuals and infertile people.

Parenting studies from both sides of the debate are trying to establish a rational basis for granting or denying these individuals—or couples comprised of these individuals—the right to raise children (and, although it's a somewhat separate argument, committing to their couple-hood and parenthood via marriage).

However, even if a study showed beyond the shadow of a doubt that same-sex or infertile couples raised children more poorly than opposite-sex couples on average, my guess is that they would still be proven to raise them better than a single parent (or orphanage). Thus, the gov would actually have a rational basis to ALLOW homosexual parentage and marriage, since this gives more kids a better chance at success.

(Opening the rational basis argument wider, the gov has more rational basis to deny single people, convicted criminals, drug addicts, etc., the right to parentage than they ever would same-sex or infertile opposite sex couples.)

Could not agree more.

If studies show that kids of couples over 40 do worse than those of couples under 40 should we bar them from marriage licenses?

I too always turn to the Koran.

These 5% frequencies exist as a normal, predictable part of a data set. Worded differently: A 5% frequency is the natural norm.

Hahaha, thank god, someone on this thread finally understands logical fallacy! Now if I could only get our sarcasm detection up...

You are incorrectly conflating "majority" with "normal."

Normal/natural simply refers to anything that occurs with some measure of predictability or regularity, it does not assert any majority/minority status as compared to other phenomena.

I'm a conservative, and you know what I hate? Universities. "Science." Liberties like freedom to marry a consenting adult of the same gender. Hard working immigrants. Birth control. The working poor.

Why wont anyone vote for me? I'm totally appealing.

Obviously.

Your argument has an element of the "appeal to nature" fallacy in it.

Homosexuality is normal. Occurs in most mammals, at varying (across species) but consistent frequencies.

So your solution is...?

From Politico:

Gay marriage: “On the ‘open-minded’ issue … [w]e will face serious difficulty so long as the issue of gay marriage remains on the table.”

Hispanics: “Latino voters … tend to think the GOP couldn’t care less about them.”

Perception of the party’s economic stance: “We’ve become the party that will pat you on your back when you make it, but won’t offer you a hand to help you get there.”

Big reason for the image problem: The “outrageous statements made by errant Republican voices.”

Words that up-for-grabs voters associate with the GOP: “The responses were brutal: closed-minded, racist, rigid, old-fashioned.”

...

Republicans need to avoid allowing the abortion debate to be “conflated” with debates over contraception, rape and Planned Parenthood, the report recommended, though the party needn’t alter its stance on the issue of abortion itself.

The CRNC’s polls found that 54 percent of young voters said “taxes should go up on the wealthy” while only 3 percent said “taxes should be cut for the wealthy.” Bashing Big Gov also didn’t play well and was even damaging, according to some of the focus groups...