Personally, I'll settle for you refuting or discrediting the numerous studies showing the following:
- the effects of genetic and pre-natal environmental factors on adult sexual orientation.
- "separated twin"-type studies that show strong correlation between sexual orientation of individuals who share genetics, pre-natal environment and nothing else.
- strong correlations between traits developed early in pregnancy and sexual orientation, indicating that by the time the trait is developed, sexual orientation is largely set.
- that behavioral surveys serve as strong predictors of adult sexual orientation as soon as a child is capable of participating in them.
I'm not an expert on the subject. This is a recent exchange with someone I know who actually participates in research in the field. This is from an email exchange he and another had in an group I belong to. The author is non-religious and was opposed Prop. 8:
"While the origins of much homosexuality (at least when developed young [some do in fact make a conscious choice as adults]) remain a mystery, science has NOT found any genetic or hormonal differences or associations. And it is hard to figure how brain structures could be different prior to birth and social experience without genetic and/or hormonal causes. Despite common claims to the contrary, science simply has not detected genetic and hormonal differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals. Indeed, the last genetic research reported in "Science" (by labs at Stanford, Univ. of Chicago, and Western Ontario Univ.) concluded that not only had no relevant genetic marker been found, none was likely to be found. And so that line of research has dwindled.
The major problem with brain structure studies is methodology. The famous study done in early 1990s was so flawed that it no longer has any credibility and has not been replicated. I looked at the source you provided and followed its links, but did not find a description of the research protocols, so I cannot evaluate this one. BUT, even if method is satisfactory for measuring differences reliably, there still remains the problem of causal direction. That is, did brain structure cause homosexuality, or did homosexuality induce brain changes, or did some set of social psychological and/or other environmental factors cause (contribute to) both? We do not know. (We do know that experience can alter brain structure. In other words, differences of brain structure can be a consequence rather than cause.)"
From my readings this seems a fairly standard view save from those with political agendas.
Catholic Charities voluntarily contracted with the Massachussetts government to provide adoption services. In doing so, they chose to subject themselves to the same standards as the government with regards to discrimination. When the rules regarding discrimination changed, they elected to not continue in their voluntary relationship and continued to be free to discriminate as they pleased.
Thus my point from earlier in the thread: a right doesn't allow the state to be neutral. The right places the state decidedly on one side of the issue and it cannot allow contrary positions vis-a-vis the state. Now there are now less adoption options available in Massachusetts.
Consent for marriage was absent through much of Judeo-Christian tradition, yet it is now a strong part of our current rules and conventions around marriage. It appears we progressed beyond your traditional model some time ago, so that makes me question its relevance in the same-sex marriage debate.
For those who reject cultural appeals and also reject democratic process in determining the norms a society will govern itself by, there is little left save the authoritarian boot. One difficulty I see in this debate is those who are willing to sacrifice democratic process over loyalty to a given position. It is a dangerous view.
. Are religions part of society? 
