That's just taking us back to where this thread started from, Vicki, and we've already seen that many people simply don't agree that the only purpose of marriage is procreation. The author is basing his argument on a premise that really, in this day and age, is not broadly accepted. It's certainly not - again - relying on anything but opinion and value-judgements, so it doesn't get us any further forward.
Apart from that, the argument has some logical flaws. Even in heterosexual marriages the couple may choose not to have children. Does that mean they have no right to get/remain married? What if one or both is infertile? Should their marriage be dissolved?
And that's before I refer back to points made at the start of this thread about children living in very unhealthy family situations, children in single-parent families, abused children and so on... and children adopted or born into same-sex relationships.
This:
Gay marriage robs something that belongs exclusively to women. Man-woman marriage is not anti-gay, it is pro-feminine. Same sex marriage is anti-feminist.
just leaves me boggled.
Wendy
