My views on gay mariage

[Whateverist]

.. or even a proper reply to points supported improperly.

Improper, please tell me how you think that they are improperly supported. From the beginning of the argument, I have had one support, and one support only. That marriage is an insitution that is regulated by traditions, and that marriage, from the beginning of its existence had one main goal, to provide a safe environment for a child to be concevied, and raised, with a legal/social obligation for both of the parties to look after the child. In short, I have stated that this was the primary goal of the marriage, to provide for the newer generations by bringing two people who are able to procreate together.

I yet have to see an argument that was more anymore proper than mine.
Others have gone about how marriage has changed, how it is a right for everyone, not it's not for everyone. In the old days, and yet still in our country, though you can legally marry, no one will marry you unless you have a proper job, have done your military duty, and many other factors such as how well off your family is, or how less problematic your family is, whether you smoke, drink and etc..
Back then, marriage was something that was regulated by higher standards than today.
Not everyone could marry. But today, marriage is like a game...Therefore you think that gays, who do not meet the least requirements to form a marital couple, meaning, being male and female should marry.
I disagree on the basis I've mentioned above. What really is your standing point?

Your starting point is that this is the way it has always been, which is actually something you can't possibly know. Leastwise you are in no better position to speak for what has always been or what is essential about what has always been than anyone else is in.

My starting point is that marriage is the way we establish our families beyond that into which we are born. Pair bonding is the nucleus for formalizing our 'inner circles' going forward at adulthood. (It may be that some folks will prefer a bigger starting unit than a pair but lets leave that to the side for now.) Some may even prefer to live in solitude and we -from both our points of view- do not begrudge them to exercise their preference in this, do we? For others, like my wife and myself, there is no desire to enlarge the inner circle beyond ourselves. We did not marry to provide conditions for raising a child. That was never our intention. I would like to know if you have any problem from your traditional outlook with our arrangement? Should people be allowed to enjoy a married status if our only rationale for joining is the satisfaction it gives us to make and share our lives together?

If your traditional view can allow for my wife's and my preference, I surely do not see why two people of the same sex choosing to get together to make and share their lives should matter so much. Some of them at least will want to adopt or pursue children with artificial assistance. My wife and I have intention of doing even that much. We're not worried that the world will run out of people without our contribution and we don't feel we need to have children for our own satisfaction either.

The reason I say your traditional position is improperly supported is that you can't use its being traditional to support the argument that tradition is better. You can use it to justify your own preference, but it gives you no basis to justify imposing your preference on anyone else.