There's no nicer way to say this but...

[kılıç_mehmet]

This minority, as you say, its bigger than the number of homossexual couples.

Maybe in western countries. Well, its your funeral. Not mine.
However, I can tell you this that the people who marry without the intent of having children at all are still a very small minority. I guess you meant to say the total married couples without children, rather than those who don't want to have children.

A fact eh?
You call anecdotal stories a fact? I happen to know two couples that are married for more than 30 years without kids. What a big fail.

Anecdotal stories they certainly are not. I've seen marriages fall with my own eyes. I could say the same for marriages with children, however I believe that these are a lot harder to seperate than marriges where no children are present.
You know two couples that are married for 30 years without kids, I know ten who have seperated after 5 years when the male or female partner grew tired of it, or even ended the marriage after he/she found out that the spouse was infertile. What a shock.

Are you saying that 2 people that don't get along, should stick to a failing marriage just because of the kids?

Well, if they really have serious problems as to reflect badly on the child itself, they should break up for the sake of the child.
But I think that being married requires you to solve problems, actually, especially if there is a child. Things like, "I don't find you attractive anymore" or "you lost your job" or "I met someone else" are really selfish reasons for an unselfish concept like marriage.
Besides, there are other problems obviously, that can be overcome, but today's world is making divorce easier and easier, while feeding the lawyers who are probably behind this conspiracy.

How saint is a home where father and mother just don't get along

How can they ever? Have you ever seen two people that get along too well?
If that is the case, I'd say that there is something wrong there. Either both parties cheat on eachother, find solace elsewhere as to reflect their problems on eachother, or their marriage is a fake one, simply as that.
Marriage requires people to get along, but if they can't, they need to work on how to get along.
If you simply give up and go off to other horizons, I can say that you'll probably leave behind more and more marriages in the future. Marriages do not require people to be lazy. They do not require people to be impatient.
If my mother was like that, he would have dumped my father when he went on his 7 month work at the sea, working in large container ships to send us money. Or she'd bring home men discreetly, of which I hear examples of. But she was patient, she waited for my father to come home after 7 months of not seeing his face at all. Same for my father, of course.

usually it ends up involving domestic violence

Oh really? My grandfather and my grandmother never got along too well. As long as I knew myself, he and she slept in different beds. She was later found out to be mentally sick, but my grandfather did take care of her for the rest of his life, while my grandmother has taken care of him while he lived out his last days.
Not even once, has my grandfather hit my grandmother in his entire life.
And they were married through an arranged marriage, where they never saw eachother before.
There is a saying in Turkish: "Nikahta keramet vardır..." which translates to, "There is a huge power in marriage..."
This is just a single testimony to the power and necessity of marriage.

I think fathers and mothers should love their children for what they are, not for what they want them to be.

Of course, an extreme case, but would you love your child if he/she had renounced you, spit on you, and brought anarchy upon your home?
There is no "no matter what", nothing in the whole world is that sacred.
This is like "husbands should love their wives for what they are, not for what they want them to be." even if she commits adultery with other men, that is what she is, maybe. She can't help it. There is no such world, friend.

If I had a kid, my only wish for them is that they come healthy and respectfull towards others.

Of course, health comes first, but I guess you and I have different opinions on what is to be considered "healthy". As for respect, I've already told you what I think of respect. This includes respecting me and my wife first, before anyone else, as I'm the father and she's the mother.
Just as my parents have not taught my to be a chronic fornicator, a drunkard and hedonist, I'd disrespect them if I openly showed these negative characteristics they have told me not to do. If they did not teach me any values at all, they would be held accountable for it. But they certainly could not say anything to the child, as the child "reflects" them.
If my child acts against my wishes, and it reflects poorly on me, I reflect this back on the child, as the responsibility lies entirely on him, not me.

Oh, and 99% of statistics are made on the spot.

And I guess you know any fathers who just wish their kids to be gay before they were even born.
Of course, I know some parents who like to dress up their boys like girls, and treat them as girls, those are mentally ill people, and clearly a very small minority amongst the majority of people who just want normal kids, normal, like themselves.

In conclusion, you have nothing but your bigotry as an argument, but you're not alone.

Sure, bigotry. Your no. 1 word against those who don't seem to share your opinions. I've never called out you people with any special names, have I? But from now on, I will. Each time you use this word, I'll use a word on my own.

You keep peddling that high horse you have, not noticing that you are in a deep hole with it. 'Sanctity', appeals to history, appeals to emotion. A bunch of crock shit for all that matters to a rational person.

You are not rational. Rational people would accept things as they are, and were meant to be. You're nothing but romantics bordering the romanticism of the communists of old. And even they did not support crap like the crap you support. You're not rational, you're insane.
Sanctity, of course, means nothing to a madman. He can go out with his penis hanging out, he can go and take a crap on the highway, because he's insane. He has no boundaries at all, nothing is sacred to him but the small candle he has stuck on his forhead, maybe. He defends it with such ferocity, all the while disregarding the irrelevance of his candle to society.
This is how I view you people.
Likewise, you disregard the sanctity of things like marriage, nations, flags, countries, cultures, traditions, things that are relevant to society, things that are relevant to civilisation, all the while holding on to LGBT rights, something that is irrelevant, something that is like the candle to the naked lunatic.

---

It goes a lot deeper than property. Are you aware of death taxes? Married people don't have to pay them, but civil union couples do last I checked. How much bullshit is that? You have to pay to die just because you love someone that's the same sex as you?

I never heard of such a thing, but I guess that can be overcome with a small change in the law. Really, no big deal.

If two people are in love, they should be able to get married. Period.

Why does it require just people? Maybe I want to get married to my car, because I love my car, and I maintain the notion that my car loves me.
We can get the same benefits of a married couple, even though my car is not even a person, but may be a person in my mind.
Really, you speak of things that are as stupid as the story above.

And DeeTee, doesn't your god say its a sin to lay with another man? It doesn't say it's a sin to be homosexual, just that it's a sin to have sex with another man. Ask just about any straight guy that's been married for a while and we'll all tell you it's possible to have a sexless marriage. Even taking your holy book and your god into account, who are you to deny them their right to all the legal and social benefits that straight couples enjoy?

I can tell you this. You obviously have no knowledge on what marriage was all about at it's very foundation. Have you ever wondered why fornication, meaning, sex outside of the bedlock, is a frowned upon, or sometimes punished form of conduct in many societies around the world?
Marriage is supposed to be the sanctification of sex between two people.
But with the social and jurisdictional restrictions on sex outside of the marriage being lifted, what really is the point for gays to get married if they won't have sex at all?
True, sexless marriages are possible, but I guess this is just a hypothetical marriage in which both partners have serious psychological issues.