I would recommend this book Same Sex Unions in Premodern Europe by John Boswell.
Remember, the Holy Tradition is not just what was written by some specific Fathers we have identified as important. The Holy Tradition is about the practice of the church, its liturgies, its rites, its dissenting voices that become majority voices in time, etc.
Professor Boswell lays out a strong case for Christian recognition of Same-sex unions and same sex relationships in pre-modern Europe with patristic witness. Honestly, it appears that no one ever really spoke out against, for example, two men joining themselves together before God (even before the icon of the Virgin Mary), but they did speak against rape, lustful excess, etc.
The voice of the fathers is not univocal on any subject, and neither is the practice of the church. The Holy Spirit, also, is not retired. The Spirit is still guiding us into all truth, even in the matter of same-sex relationships and marriage.
There are dozens of scholars and Catholic churches that verify this.
https://www.amazon.com/Same-Sex-Unions-Premodern-Europe-Boswell/dp/0679751645
There's isolated instances of church's accepting it earlier, though no denomination openly accepted it as a whole.
Have you ever been to a same sex ceremony? It's can be as much of a God Blessed Holy Union as any other. To deny that is arrogant pride and the 'b' word. And you would place yourself in judgement of others as if you were the creator.
We don't need any laws to protect Churches. These are just new scapegoats to find ways to discriminate against people. Which is wrong.
As I have stated twice already, the USA the state and Church are separate. They became so when we separated from the Monarchy and The Church.
I could sue you for wearing pink shorts. Doesn't mean I would win and not be forced to pay your legal fees.
You don't know your Torah because some of the couples are not sex specific and may be same sex couples. It wasn't important enough to specify.
King David wrote some very romantic psalms to men. That you refuse to acknowledge this or deny it is revealing of your lack of historical awareness or underlying agenda. But at least you understand he slept around with a whole bunch of women. So when modern Christians try to say 'traditional 1 man 1 woman marriage' you know and acknowledge they are lying.
Look, it's been fun, but you really don't seem to have enough historical context to understand and you seem to want to just find excuses to discriminate against people.
Allow me to recommend a book to study Same Sex Marriage in Pre Modern Europe. Link: http://www.amazon.com/Same-Sex-Unions-Premodern-Europe-Boswell/dp/0679751645
Revealing: "They also had marriage with animals and objects." Interestingly you do not call the same sex marriages I cited as, marriage, but you do when it suits your agenda to objects and animals.
"...animals and object" Oh, you are one of those. Why didn't you just say so? It amazes me someone could be on the internet, on reddit, exposed to all this knowledge and different experiences and still be one of those. But hey, we probably have some flat earthers here too.
If you want to be a bigot, just be one. But don't try to hide it under a veil of hunt and pick religions and a lack of understanding of history, nature, tradition, reason, compassion and the human condition.
When I hear that argument from people, religious or not, I bring up the eight types of marriage in the bible, none of which match the legal marriage of today:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bibl0.htm
My point isn't about the bible as such, but rather, that the societal definition of marriage has changed. Indeed, my next point is that in 1900 a marriage was basically the taking of one woman by one man of the same race and religion from her father as (basically) property. If I want to be really picky about it, I refer to this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Same-Sex-Unions-Premodern-Europe-Boswell/dp/0679751645/
...which establishes plainly that marriage had basically no definite definition until about 1300 (when the spanish inquisition got involved), but that it was definitely a property transaction, not an institution of "love" or "family".
And for your dad personally, I'd tell him that if society defined marriage, society can re-define marriage, and then I'd point out the demographics that establish that that is going to happen:
http://www.gaymarriageresearch.com/gay-marriage-facts-statistics/
...so he might as well start trying to get used to the idea.
It's really not all "bollocks".
Interesting read: http://www.amazon.com/Same-Sex-Unions-Premodern-Europe-Boswell/dp/0679751645