magellan01, I have re-formulated the OP in a manner that I hope you will find a bit more understandable.
Won’t it really just impact The Stupid?
If so, so?
hehehe - Maybe it was the double negative you had in the first OP that brought confusion (“no negative impact”)! 
To be clear, I think it’s just all too sudden for people to regard marriage in the “gay-way.”
Hetero-married (or is it DSM?) will say things like, “Huh, we took our vows in front of GOD! WE follow HIS ways, not some liberal claptrap! WE are conservative! The way that GOD meant for this country to BE!”
I envy anyone who can love and trust someone enough to make them family, same sex or not. Let 'em get married. It’s too bad my idea of society doesn’t reach beyond my doorway for most of the “others” out there.
Unfortunately, The Stupid seems to be at least 25% of the population. They also seem to like guns.
That’s not how it works. You made assertions. It is incumbent upon you to back them up. You don’t get to hide them because your unable to back them up, to open another thread in hopes of hiding the very assertions that caused you to create the thread in the first place.
So, let’s see it. I’m waiting for you to do what is done around here every day: provide support for the assertions you’ve put forth in your OP.
Still waiting.
Still using disingenuous delaying tactics hoping to deflect the thread away from your indefensible position?
Hello pot, meet kettle.
Not meaning to jump in at a awkward place, but I’d like to make an distinction:
There are two types of marriages, the legal and the religious type.
Following that, there are four levels of consideration for every issue. These are arranged in concentric circles, one encompassing the other. Think Martha Nussbaum, only not as confusing, or as unpatriotic 
They are, matters of the personal life, matters of morality, matters of public policy, and matters of legality.
The traditional example used here can be seen with the issue, or non-issue of smoking. Smoking, in and of itself, is purely a personal choice. Smoking in the baby’s room is a question of morality. Taxing the tobacco is a matter of public policy. And prohibiting sales of tobacco to minors is a matter of legality.
In the issue of SSM, I will not delve into the side of the Church, the definition of marriage in their eyes is purely that. No entity, or couple can mandate the Church’s views on the issue. That decision rests fully with them. Conversely, one can comment on the side of society as a whole. SSM is purely a personal matter, because it is essentially a contract between two informed consenting adults. Morality has nothing to do with the issue, rather that is a construct of people’s religious fervor. Since the issue did not reach even this far out in the concentric circle, the rest of the circles is deemed moot, and no public policy ought to be set for SSM’s restriction.
While it may seem like I do support SSM, I do not support the movement at all. But, as I have said above, it is a personal choice, so whatever floats people’s boat. 
You’re assuming I’ve not explained my thinking. You are wrong. Feel free to do a search. You’re claiming I started a thread and made assertions in the OP that I refuse to back up, trying to walk away from my assertions. Wrong again. If you think you’re right, I’ll have to ask for a cite on that.
Your thinking is obvious - your reasoning is elusive.
This is pure bullshit. The OP actually provided reasons within the OP.
Other countries and US states that have legal SSM and have suffered no ill effects.
It’s ***your * ** contention that that isn’t enough time and the ill effects won’t be seen for forty years or. A contention that you have a big zero of evidence for and very near zero sound logic for.
To counter your baseless contention I’ve pointed out our history of civil rights and the fact that other civil rights issues that had similar opposition as SSM and those issues have consistently shown the baseless fears of social decay {similar to what you’ve proposed} all proved completely false. The one against interracial marriage was 40 years ago. The number you suggested. Other issues have been even longer with no ill affect.
I’d say that means the proponents of SSM have already provided adequate evidence while you and those who may agree with you have provided zero.
Since the OPs evidence clearly outweighs yours then it’s up to you to support yours further. That’s a real problem isn’t it?
Sure you can claim the OPs evidence isn’t adequate, but as long as you can offer no realistic evidence to support your opposing view then the fact remains *all *available evidence {meager or otherwise} supports the OP and none supports your contention.
The more you avoid direct requests to support your position with distractions such as the above the more obvious the weakness of your position actually is.
Which is why I’ve explained it when asked.
But now, here in this thread when the OP makes certain assertions that I think are incorrect, and ask him to back up those assertions, he refuses. That’s not how it works. In the many other threads like this, I’ve had to provide rationale/evidence, etc. for every fucking thing I’ve typed. I’ve had 5, 10 posters grilling me with every teensy weensy thing. Now, in this thread, someone else has made assertions on the subject. I think that’s great. Finally, someone taking an affirmative stance. But I’m allowed to question him. I expect him to man up to requests from little ole me, as I have in many other threads, when the requests came from a small throng. Threads that I wasn’t even the OP of.
The OP provided reasons for those assertions. There’s in the OP. That’s evidence. What you got?
What complete bullshit. You’ve never proved a damn thing you’ve said about why gays shouldn’t get equal rights.
Not even once.
Oh yeah, something bad might happen some time (maybe in 40 years or so???)
What “evidence” there was went to counter my assertions in the other thread. And I’ve dispensed with them as he thought they applied. The thing for him to do not=w is to respond to my Post #6.
I’m tickled that you’re so biased that you’re defending that an OP shouldn’t have to defend the position he’s laid out in his OP. You might want to think that one through.
Try paying attention this time, will ya? I NEVER claimed to have proven anything. I also never claimed I could fly, so add that to your same list.
Yeesh.
Fine, you’ve never provided any evidence. Big fucking difference.
Also, why is it that cwthree has to prove the things stated as an introduction in the OP, but nothing you say can or needs to be proven?
If you won’t even try to prove or corroborate anything, then you really are not entitled to demand that someone else has to.
Anyone can make baseless claims with no evidence, or proof.
Expansion and dilution are not synonymous. So no, it doesn’t dilute by definition.
Since that seems to be the crux of your argument, I don’t know that you have much else.