It’s a bit condescending, and I do so very infrequently.
I only do so here because I am confident of it, and because I fully expected you to agree. And I still fully expect you to agree.
Also, I ought to point out that you have already conceded I was correct, because your first argument was based on rights (as if you can only marry if you have a right, which is ridiculous in itself), and then after my challenge, you now switched and say it is because it is impossible to be married without a dual oath (which somehow you insist is the integral part of marriage–you ask if a dog can raise its paw–I ask if a man with no hands can raise his hand and swear). (I’d also note that your arguments would not carry to incest or to plural marriages.)
The reason you object to men marrying dogs is that it is perverse and is not a relationship that society should value or give recognition to. And that is the reason I object to same-sex marriage, and the reason Hashem does also.
If you won’t agree that that is the reason, then I have no interest in debating it, since I think your position is just silliness.