Well, then, you are saying that marriages that are absolutely confirmed to be sterile should be dissolved by the state.
If a tiny percentage of people are unable to produce children, they shouldn't be punished for it. Doctors have known to be wrong, and they could wind up with a child.
Raising this argument in the case of (for example) a woman who has had a hysterectomy makes you sound like the pet shop keeper in Monty Python's "dead parrot" sketch.
They could adopt, and raise a child in a male / female family unit. The potential for healthy childraising still exists.
"Could" and "potential" don't cut it. Adoption can't "just happen" in the course of events, the way that pregnancy "just happens" when a heterosexual couple goes at it enough times. It requires a series of deliberate actions. Thus, the logic of your argument would make an ironclad agreement to pursue at least one adoption a prerequisite for permitting a sterile couple to marry.
I think you're trying to find a logical flaw in an issue that is rooted in human nature. Take a step back and look at it.
Every culture in history, every culture, has developed the institution of marriage. Every tribe in every jungle, every clan on every mountain.
Why?
Because, as a broad issue, it is the only way to produce a certain result. That result is to raise children to repopulate that culture. Does each hetero couple produce happy, stable, productive citizens? Of course not. We don't need the potential of each couple to pan out, we just need the tradition to be set and upheld, and enough will be produced.
This has zero, and I mean zero, to do with gay marriage.
Thus, the logic of your argument would make an ironclad agreement to pursue at least one adoption a prerequisite for permitting a sterile couple to marry.
Not at all.
First off, most people don't know they're infertile until they try.
Second, every potential family doesn't need to pan out. We still need to protect the institution. See above.
I notice that most of your responses to me involve taking my positions to an extreme absolute. So, in some extreme cases, my position may sound absurd. For instance.
Hetero couples can produce unhappy people who become mass murderers. Thus, it could be said that since I advocate hetero couples, I advocate mass murder.
Rather than take my postions on hetero marriage to their illogical conclucions, and put words in my mouth, why don't we discuss the concept of gay marriage. The case for gay marriage is absurd on its face, it requires no distortion.