This argument has always amazed me.<quoted text> If you want to redefine marriage between man and woman to two persons then the burden of proof is on you, not me.
Do you even realize how many times marriage has been "redefined"?
Your "traditional marriage" was between a man and multiple women or between a man and his "property". The idea a marriage for "love" is very recent (historically speaking).
And again, all completely irrelevant to the legal contract that we call marriage.Most people when the marry do not know if they are infertile or not but I would say infertile couples does not justify SSM. The hard science indicates compatible reproductive organs are there for a reason. People are physically hetero. Assuming you are female then you have reproductive organs. That means you are physically hetero.
That is the hard science. Proper reproduction is important for the continuation of the species. Sure anybody can reproduce and many have children out of wedlock or they divorce and thus deprive the child of their rights. Children have rights to responsible loving mothers and fathers. Two mommies does not equal one daddy.
We could legalize a type of SSM in which adoption for these couples would be out and they would not go for it. Yet in Massachusetts Catholic adoption agencies had to shut down because they could not allow children to be adopted to same sex couples.
Massachusetts is for all practical purposes the blueprint for SSM in the United States.
If you do not mind your tax money being used for sex reassignment surgery for 64 year old man/woman [?] then by all means go ahead. If you do not mind teaching children SSM is as legitimate as OSM then go ahead. Me? One of the worst things we can do as a nation is to further corrupt children and deny them their God given rights.
Do you think we are at risk of going extinct as a species? You keep bringing up continuation of the species. How children should be raised (even though your ideal is no longer the norm).
Yet, as stated, procreation is not a requirement or marriage and marriage is not a requirement of procreation.
This is the legal quandary those wishing to deny marriage to same sex couples have.
The only argument they (you) have against SSM is that they can't reproduce.
Sorry, not a valid reason to deny equal protection under the law.
As long as other couples who also cannot reproduce are allowed marriage rights, you are creating a separate class which is not allowed in our country.