...Can a woman not enjoy/teach sports? Can a man not braid hair? What EXACTLY are kids missing out on?
What is a good role model made of? A GOOD person, regardless of gender! Someone who is loving, kind, hard working, honest, trustworthy, fights (reasonably!) for what they believe in. Someone with integrity! Why can a women instill these to her son, and father in his daughter...
Well, if there is no difference between being a man and woman, you are right. Lots of folks, including me, believe there ARE differences. Natural differences. And it is easier to teach those differences with a man & woman working together in a stable family. That is the OPTIMUM. Not the only way to raise kids, but the optimum.
That is why societies that have never heard of the Bible or that existed before Moses had marriage. Raising the next generation is tough. For thousands of years, societies have concluded it is best done by man & woman, although some have had man & wome
n. Virtually none have had man & man, or woman & woman. Societies that practiced homosexuality openly still kept the family as man/woman.
Without any reference to religion, marriage has been held in high regard because of what it can do for the next generation. It is not unreasonable to suggest approaching the idea of homosexual marriage with caution. Based on what I've seen in families around me over my life, I don't think easy divorce and applauding single parents has worked out well for society.
Cohabiting is open to anyone of any sex and in any numbers. Society doesn't prevent anyone from cohabiting. "Marriage" has been held in higher regard because, when it works, it works very well.
You can say there are studies that show homosexual parenting works fine. I can show other studies that say the opposite. Given the bias most researchers on BOTH
sides bring, having some genuine data reported reasonably is probably a false hope. Even the proponents of mandatory homosexual marriage admitted to the court that the science was inconclusive. Given that homosexual activity was illegal 50 years ago, and that homosexual marriage wasn't thought about by the vast majority of folks 25 years ago, we probably cannot have any decent long term studies yet.
Under a federal system, with each state able to make its own laws, it isn't unreasonable for the states that don't allow homosexual marriage to want to wait and see how it plays out in other states. And if someone feels strongly about it, as I do about taxes & gun rights, they can move to a state that reflects their views - as I have by retiring in Arizona instead of California or Colorado. If you offered me $50K/year to live in Illinois or New York, I'd turn you down. But if you are right about homosexual marriage, and it is a spectacular success as a way of raising kids, then more states will adopt it. Societies are like battleships - they don't turn on a dime, nor should they.
Either way, it isn't something found in the US Constitution. No one writing it or ratifying it had any concept that it might someday be used to require homosexual marriage. It takes a gross twisting of the words - something courts do all the time, as with equine liability laws - to insert into the Constitution a 'right' to homosexual marriage. Let the states handle it.