Pointing out others stupidity, ignorance and bigotry is not attempting to curb their freedom of thought and speech.

It is their freedom of thought and speech which allows them to make such an ass of themselves - a reality you are all too familiar with.

What on earth does low conflict environment mean? Are you trying to set up another strawman here?

You really have nothing except twisting and turning.

You do not desire the protection of all children - you merely want to protect your own belief of what is a family despite all the evidence to the contrary.

"There is no doubt that this is the ideal and is the best environment for children to flourish."

There may be no doubt in your mind but there is no evidence to back up your assertion - there is evidence to the contrary though.

"I think you are completely wrong when you say that sex of parents don't matter"

You might think that - but that does not make it so. The evidential base would disagree. It would also be rare for couples (of whichever parental makeup) to be bringing up children in isolation of other family members who can provide that complementarity (if it is indeed needed)

Nice try at sidestepping the question about protection for children of same sex parents (they exist whether you like it or not). All you seem to have done is move on from saying that same sex couples should not be allowed to marry to a position of attempting to infer that same sex parents should be discouraged (or would you ban them) from having children by creating or continuing inequalities which reinforces your assertions about their abilities and the outcomes for their children.

For someone so concerned about equality you have a lot of discriminatory things you want sustained and foisted on the rest of us just to satisfy what you think.

All the small sample sizes show is that they are small samples. What is more important is the aggregation of all these smaller studies which still show the same results.

There are many ways in which couples (whether same sex or opposite sex) can have children even when their sexual relationship is not capable of producing them. Those children of the opposite sex couple can have protection through marriage but you are maintaining that those of same sex couples should not be so protected.

Your last paragraph is irrelevant as it presupposes that there is any detriment to the wellbeing and development of a child when brought up by parents of the same sex. It is not a matter of which sex is important but how the parents love and bring up the child.

It seems strange that a group of people who wish to stop another group doing something that they themselves will not be required to do feel discriminated against.

Perhaps that group is actually suffering from a feeling of their over privileged place in running other peoples lives is being eroded and that their influence is being equalised with everyone elses. In the equality stakes there is still a lot of religious influence to be neutered in order for them to be equal with everyone else. They are not quite the martyrs that they they claim to be.

Are the children of same sex couples not entitled to the same protection?

"Marriage isn't about sexual preference, it is about the distinction of the sexes"

That's your opinion and you are welcome to it - but that is all it is. If you have chosen to marry against your sexual preference (it's an orientation in reality as preference would indicate that there is a choice in orientation) then that is your choice but it is no reason for you to interfere in the equally valid choice of those to marry according to their sexual orientation.

You attempt to conflate preferences with orientation is as old and tired as many of your other fallacies - and have been shown up for the smoke and mirrors used to cover up religious bigotry for a long time. If you want to make a fool of yourself twisting yourself in knots then feel free.

I certainly won't be joining you down your ratholes.

That day has come and gone (or could well be still with us) - respect and tolerance were not the order of the day.

Why do you seem to suggest that the inequality between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple is not a real equality issue? Why do you choose to draw the line at where you see inequality start only after homosexuals gain some equality?

To use your terms why should a heterosexuals "lifestyle choice" be given increased protection and favour over that of a homosexuals. The only difference is the sexuality of the people involved not the number of people. Polygamy and incest are merely red herrings to deflect from the fact that you do not equate homosexual love and commitment to heterosexual.

They can stop celebrating christmas if they want - it's their choice. The rest of us will probably go on enjoying it as we usually do (maybe more so without all the xtian war on christmas nonsense)