Done? OK. The argument put forth by Mr James Jordan is that same sex marriage is different from heterosexual marriage, therefore, it should be outlawed. Here's how he actually tries to justify that:
In same sex marriage, there is no procreation. There is no mother and father. A man and a woman do not equal a man and a man. Period. It's not that a man and a man are less than a man and a woman. It's that the two unions are fundamentally different.See the problem? The "they're not the same" argument can easily be used to ban interracial marriage. After all, a white man and a black woman isn't the same as a a white man and white woman, or a black man and a black woman. Hell, a black man and a black woman aren't the same as a white man and white woman, so why are we allowing black people to marry at all? Or ANY racial group other than "white"? Those types of unions are fundamentally different than the "norm" of white couples. We could even go so far as to outlaw marriages between people of different economic classes, or people of different age groups or nationalities, if we so desired, since those unions are all fundamentally different than staying within one's own class or age group.
But we can even go further than that. The specific examples he used, despite actually being wrong (we'll get to that) can be used on many types of marriage that are legal in all of the USA. No procreation? OK, then, sterile people can't be married, including those who get vasectomies and hysterectomies. Menopausal women can't be married either. And "no mother and father"? Well, then people who don't ascribe to traditional gender roles (men who do housework, women who discipline kids, etc) can't be married either. And by extension, this argument invalidates single parent households, as well as gay adoption.
However, if we simply ignore the part about gay couples having the same sex, we'd find that they are, essentially, the same as heterosexual couples. There can be procreation, though it has to be by a surrogate or a sperm bank, or even in vitro fertilization. And it's quite easy to have one partner fulfill other "traditional gender role", thus having two males, or two females, while having a "mother and father". I mean, do you really need a vagina to care for children, clean and cook? Do you really need a penis to make be the "breadwinner" and to fix stuff?
So, yeah, your argument fails, James. As does your assertion that you don't have to hate gay people to oppose gay marriage. I mean, I guess that one could just be ignorant and not hateful, much like a white person in the 1960s thinking black people need to use different toilets because white people can't handle "black diseases" (that was seriously the justification for that, or at least according to The Help, which is a pretty good movie). But really, once you get down to it, by denying gay people the right to marry each other, you're making them second class citizens. It's the very definition of second class citizenry, denying one group of people rights afforded to others. And if you don't have a good reason to do that, then yes, it is hateful. Sorry.