Traditional Marriage (Man/Woman) and Same-Sex unions are not Equal. Convince me otherwise.

I'll address your points individually. 1, Yes, But ONLY M-F relationships can bear children. And while some M-F relationships can't, Or won't, Bear children, It is still a valid and legitimate reason for the State to promote/encourage that relationship over others. As an analogy, Take plants. More specifically, Consider the Olive Tree (or any other fruit-bearing tree). It is a fine tree. It provides fruit, Good solid wood, And oil. Now consider other plants, Maybe the cactus. The cactus may be good in and of itself, But would you fault anyone for wanting to encourage and nurture the growth of the Olive tree over the Cactus? I am not saying get rid of all cacti all together. I'm just saying, There is nothing wrong with encouraging and promoting something over another, Especially if that something provide a benefit that it and only it can provide. Now, You may argue, "Well, Some Olive Trees can't bear fruit. . . . Or some olive trees have rotten wood". Still, Those 2 reasons are not good enough reasons to NOT encourage the growth of Olive Trees over others. You get my point right? 2. Um. No. MM or FF pairs can not produce kids. Sure, They can be the recipient of offspring, But they can not produce children. The fact remains, You still need a male to donate the sperm. Without the union of a Male and Female, You won't produce offspring. Just like I can be the recipient of an Olive Tree. But I can't "have an Olive tree"-- what is needed are the "right ingredients" so to speak to produce an olive tree. A M-M relationship can't have kids any more than a Man and Fish, Or a Woman and Tennis Racket. Why not? Well, Put simply, The right ingredients are simply not there. That's like putting 9 people on a field with a tennis racket and a bowling ball, And then saying "Alright guys, You're playing baseball. " But are they REALLY playing baseball? Some may argue (rightfully so in my opinion) "No, This isn't baseball? ! ? ". But proponents might argue "Well look, You have a ball and something to hit the ball with". Now why would I say they are not playing baseball? Well, Put simply, They do not have the "right ingredients" to play the sport I would call baseball. Again, The "right ingredients" aren't there. Now, You may get a group of folks who are adamant about this sport being identical or equal to baseball, And may even push to change our lexicon to now consider baseball as a sport played with bowling ball and tennis racket. . . . . But again, The question remains. . . Is it really baseball and is it really the same as the sport being played with a traditional ball and bat? 3. I don't agree with this statement, Simply because it's operating under the assumed truth that Marriage is simply about two partners joining together. Perhaps in the eyes of the law. But laws that are written are subject to the popular idea of the day, So popular vote should not be the basis for determining whether something is true or not, Or determining something is right or not. If 200 years from now if the majority of people say "Marriage is NOT about simply celebrating the union of two partners", Would you then change your opinion because that is what the majority say? Whether something is right or wrong is not dependent on the number of hands that get raised when asked "who agrees? ". For example, There is something intrinsically wrong about slavery. Yet, We had laws that said slavery was ok. Even though the law said something was ok, That didn't make it ok. In 200 years we have the majority of the people agreeing that the moon is made of cheese. Simply because the majority say so, Doesn't make it so. Now, Maybe if we start to redefine words such as "cheese" etc we can make it mean what we want. . . . . What is my point-- it is an opinion that marriage is about simply celebrating the union of two people. but let's just say MAYBE you're right now, Marriage is only about celebrating the union of the two people. Why should the State be forced to recognize and celebrate an activity that makes two people happy? My best friend Drew and I are great friends. It is an AMAZING relationship, Ours. It makes both of us very happy. Mind you, We are not gay-- we have no physical attractions and we are both very much heterosexual (married with kids). But nonetheless our relationship is amazing and I love it and it really makes me happy, And he feels the same way. Should the state now be obligated to recognize the relationship in some special way simply because it makes the two of us so very happy? 4. Sorry. That's not a good reason or argument for stating two things should be considered equal. Put simply, That argument (there is an overabundance of people, So follows this formula: Consider X and Y X provides A There is an over abundance of A in the world Therefore, We should consider Y equal to X That argument or logic simply doesn't work.