RATIONALITY and SSM ... Mutually Exclusive, Phil?

I did not want this attempt at a discussion with Phill from http://defend-canada.blogspot.com/, to get lost in accumulating threads there and in cumulative obfuscation, be it intentional or not.

The topic of SSM was covered very well by Red at http://redtory.blogspot.com/, and so it is not my intent to repeat the content here. Instead, I am interested in exploring 'how' Phil establishes his 'content', his position … and am interested in engaging Phil in that process. So, I am presenting it here in its own thread.

THE CONCEPTUAL 'PRESENTATION' … to date

1. RESPECTING MARRIAGE (R)-Goo-Ment

Phil: You do not respect marriage as something between a man and a women, so why respect marriage between two people?
vs
SG: You do not respect marriage as something between two people, so how can you respect marriage between a man and a women?

The QUESTION (presented now for the F-O-U-R-T-H time to Phil) is, given the structure of the (R)-Goo-ment you've chosen Phil, isn't it a proof of bias rather than an argument proving its so called conclusion?

Since the argument works in reverse, doesn't it show one's axiomatic starting point is one's axiomatic conclusion - and therefore there is no difference between the two. So, isn't the (R)-Goo-Ment and therefore its conclusion ONLY a reflection of 'original bias', and NOT an argument at all?

In fact, I think it is a stronger case to say 'appreciating the general case for Love and Marriage between Any Two People (ATP) includes the particular Hetro Sex Marriage (HSM)'
BUT
Only appreciating the Particular (HSM), because it rejects the General, Any Sex Marriage (ASM), is minimally deficient in its appreciation of Love because of this exclusion, and so is a deficient position on Love and Marriage, if the two have any link.

The failure to admit the Love-Marriage link, heads us down the road of Traditional Arranged Marriage and the possible legislation of cultural and religious preference …

So isn't your '(R)-Goo-Ment' not only NOT an argument, but when examined points to ASM as a stronger case?

2. If SSM, then NO MARRIAGE at all

The SSM = Polygamy + Man/Dog Marriage (R)-Goo-Ment is ...
'If you don't draw My Line (HSM), then you can draw Any Line' … if you do not arbitrarily hold the line at 'Straight' marriage, then you CAN NOT draw any line at all, demarcating Marriage. You CAN NOT draw the line (arbitrarily and/or volitionally), say at Marriage is between Any Two People.

This is a silly argument and collapses upon itself, with minimal thought ... if applied that is ...

Nevertheless, it is curious how the Arbitrary Absolutists continue to see changing a boundary equating to NO BOUNDARIES at all. Or conversely, if one does not adopt their boundaries, then NO BOUNDARIES are possible.

Arbitrary Absolutists reserve the right to draw this line, for themselves ... exclusively. They are able to have particular boundaries, but 'anyone else' is NOT ... WHY!?

There is no logical justification for this exclusivity. And since there is none, what's the logically constructed case for the inclusion of their double standard, then?

... The 'thoughtless' I L L O G I C of FEAR ... EXCLUSIVELY ... I think ...

Snerd