However, I do believe that it would be a tragedy to our society if we would reduce marriage to what it would have to be in order to justify homosexual marriage.
Would you care to explain how marriage would be "reduced" by extending it to include same sex couples? Further more, what makes you think that such a change would need to be justified? Same-sex marriage has no impact whatsoever on anyone aside from the two people in that particular marriage.
Simply put, Barry marrying Steve, or Linda marrying Lucy neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg. Your entire opposition to same-sex marriage is based upon your seeing gays as lesser people than yourself and using that to justify denying them whatever rights you think you can get away with.
I don't write this with the intention to sadden you or ruin your day.
That may not have been your intention, but you knew that would be the result of your sceed and you calously posted it anyway, quit smugly asserting that your intentions were good and pure when it is so painfully obvious to anyone with eyes and insect level reasoning skills that is not the case.
I just really don't see why homosexuals can't either produce an argument that shows how a marriage is fruitful
Why should they need to? Do heterosexual have to produce an argument to show that their marriage will be "fruitful"? Where to you get this idea that a marriage, any marriage, is required to be "fruitful" in order to be justified?
By "fruitful" I can only assume you mean "resulting in children", so would consider a man or woman who is sterile to be ineligeble for marriage, or if already married that the marriage is no longer valid? If your answer is no then why not? They do not meet your standard of elegibility, so why should we hold one group to a standard that you would not hold another group to? All of that just scratches the surface of your hypocrisy. Procreation is not a legal requirement of, or impedement to, the institution of marriage in the united states.
or why they can't just live together without the license.
Because the government and many private institutions extend special rights or opportunities to married couples or spouses that are not availible to non-married couples such as tax status, visitation restrictions in hospitals, non-contestable inheritance, adoption rights, etc.
There is not a single valid social, legal, moral, or other non-religious arguement against same sex marriage. Every anti gay marriage argument attempts to frame gays as lesser people, deviant or immoral, and unworthy of privileges given to heterosexuals.
Nearly every anti gay marriage is rooted in one of two points, 1) The christian/ muslim/ jewish "god" says X is wrong, or 2) I don't like X people because they aren't like me. Neither is a valid reason to deny them rights, and both have been used by bigots in the past to deny rights to to Blacks, Immigrant, Germans, Irishmen, Italians, Asians, Hippies, Interracial couples, and a whole host of others. They were not valid then and they aren't valid now.
I am sick to death of people like yourself going on and on with the assertion that gay marriage will "destroy marriage" but never seem to be able to explains how or why that would even be possible. It's nothing more than the Politics of Fear and the Warfare of Cowards that you would expect to be used by people who don't have a valid or logically consistent arguement.
