So a straight couple who have a child by some other than the traditional means are somehow less married? Maybe their marriage is less good? Maybe their marriage is damaged by the gay couples who have already married... maybe that's how gay marriage damages all marriage. This is just insulting and ridiculous.
I've lost count of how many times I've said this in this thread. This will be the very last time, and then I am done.
You're all pointing out exceptions. I've explained repeatedly this is a
general principle... every general principle is subject to individual exceptions.
Historically the function of marriage in society is mostly about the production and upbringing of children.
Hetero marriage
as a general category is usually capable of fulfilling that function without resorting to resources (sperm, ova, wombs) outside the marriage.
Homo marriage lacks this capacity entirely. It is
entirely non-reproductive without the intervention of a third party that is not part of the marriage.
I think this is relevant, as it is one way in which SSM does not meet the definition of marriage, because it is inherently incapable of independently fulfilling marriage's primary societal function.
That fact cannot be denied. Homo coupledom is a
non-reproductive relationship without the inclusion of someone from
outside the marriage. You may think it is
irrelevant to the question of whether SSM should be made lawful; fine. That doesn't change the fact that it is
true.
Prove this statement false: ALL Homosexual couples are
incapable of producing children without the aid of a third party.
You can't prove it false, because it is true. You can argue it's
irrelevance if you wish, but you cannot argue that it isn't a
fact.