this is incoherent gibberish It is an objective fact of reality that same sex couples can and do marry in the US. That is in no way debatable. Denying that, is a total detachment from reality.
demonstrably false. it does not matter how many times you repeat that statement, you will remain demonstrably incorrect. It is an objective fact of reality that same sex couples can and do marry in the US. That is in no way debatable. Denying that, is a total detachment from reality.
"Have" as in procreate them? Because infertile couples can adopt, and therefore they "HAVE" kids. Well, I came into being because my parents were NOT infertile.
the ability or intention to procreate is entirely irrelevant to marriage, and has never at any time been a requirement for marriage.
This is the point that you are not supporting. Under what logic do you claim this? Under certain religions this would be true, but since it is not universal among all religions, it is not a fact, but an opinion.
Actually also false. There have been, across time and cultures, laws requiring procreation to make a marriage valid. It's more rare today, but even so still exist. It has been the basis of annulment in some cultures. Now if you are limiting your context to the US, I'll agree with you, but I don't recall the context of the thread being limited to any one country or even to civil law in and of itself.
Likewise with your argument. The requirement for procreation for marriage was not and never have been universal. Some had it, others didn't.
If you are referring only to US civil law, no it wasn't. The only laws with regard to marriage requirements were sex and race and blood or legal relationship. Laws dealing with the possibility of children are not requirements that can preclude marriage. If you are talking more general, again, not a universal law.
False equivalency. In order for procreation, principle or otherwise, to be a requirement of legal marriage, it has to be an actual part of the law. Otherwise it's not a legal requirement.
Legally, wrong. Religiously or socially, true. Are we on marriage in general, in all it's various forms, or just legal marriage in the US? You seem to keep jumping back and forth. Unless you are referring to the ability of a gay person to marry someone of the opposite sex, at which point you omission is a misdirection.
Adoption is not procreation Since they adopted, the fact of being man and woman is irrelevant. Especially since single parents can adopt too.
nobody is talking about other cultures. The discussion is about the US. At no time in the history of this country was procreation ever a requirement for marriage.
Adoption could be the result of an unwanted child conceived outside of marriage. Interesting that adoption by same sex couples only became legal nationwide in 2017. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_adoption_in_the_United_States
I did note that if the context were limited to the US, you are correct, but nothing in the OP says that this thread is so limited in context, and I am not positive the GFM has limited his context to the US only.