[eldude]

The assumption here is that there's no legitimate reason for supporting a gay marriage ban. Obviously A LOT of people disagree with that fundamental assumption, otherwise the potential ban wouldn't exist.

Personally, you have to address why the government is involved in marriage at all. From my understanding, it is for the purpose of encouraging the family unit and the perpetuation of society through offspring. Gay people can't have offspring unless you count lesbians and artificial insemination, but that takes the conversation down a whole other tangent.

My main point simply being, there are non-human-rights justifications for not endorsing / encouraging gay marriage, so judgment is premature.

[petercooper]

By that logic, people who are infertile, have certain disabilities, or who don't plan to have children shouldn't be allowed to get married either. I'm not convinced those are similarly good reasons to restrict marriage.

[eldude]

One is a passive granting of rights for a purpose, the other is an active taking away of rights based on faulty reasoning.

Offering a conducive environment will always necessarily benefit others. If it didn't it'd simply be called a reward. Gay marriage proponents obviously call these assumptions into question, but unfortunately offer a worse alternative.

While there may be reasoning to support limiting marriage perks to those who procreate, that only hurts their argument that those benefits should instead be extended to gays who are least worth incentivizing.

There is no more infertile a couple than one that lacks the ability based not on imperfections, but upon their intrinsic biology.