Illinois to become 15th state to recognize marriage equality

[kılıç_mehmet]

Not true. They have been various examples of same-sex marriages throughout history. If nothing else, the fact that it was banned in the Codex Theodosianus in 312AD kinda implies that it was going on. Why ban something that isn't happening?

Even so, arguing against something on the basis of tradition is incredibly daft.

Female genital mutilation is a tradition, is that ok? What about the tradition in india in which babies are thrown off a 15m rooftop onto a bedsheet? Human sacrifice was traditional. Or are we only talking about traditions that we like? Because if that's the case, then being traditional really doesn't have anything to do with it.

Yeah, from a few fringe examples, and I'd say that it was even uncommon and looked down upon in societies where homosexuality was rather "acceptable", or outright non-existent.
Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Go to any place on earth, ask any of the 72 nations of the world, and every tribe on every island across the seven seas, and they will attest to this fact.

Homosexual unions can't produce natural offspring

Neither can infertile heterosexual unions. Should we really ban sterile people from getting married? Should marriages be dissolved if a spouse becomes infertile? What about IVF treatment? Can that "validate" a union? It certainly isn't "natural".

What if a heterosexual couple are both fertile but decide not to have children, can they still get married?

Infertile people are not infertile because they want it so. They are so because some misfortune has befallen them. Most of them usually discover their infertility after they get married and think about having children. However, these do not go against the fact that marriage is connected to the institution of family, hence the terms used for children born within and outside of the wedlock, marriage does matter, and its primary purpose is to provide the next generation with the family and family values it always espoused.

It destroys the sanctity of marriage

What the hell is the "sanctity" of marriage anyway? It seems to imply some kind holy aspect to it. Well non-religious marriages exist, so it's got to be more than that. Why aren't anti-SSM people up in arms about divorces and annulments? Surely nothing is a more direct threat to the sanctity of a marriage that it's dissolution?

The sanctity of marriage lies in its importance for society. Not in religion.
But I have seen from people that support this madness, to be quite devoid of any regard for anything, they hold nothing sacred, not society, nor traditions, nor what marriage actually means or represented for cultures since the time it was practiced.