[Steel Wolf]

.. but my poiint was that those who are arguing for selective endorsement on the basis of children are being horribly inconsistent, and well as more than a little foolish (and irrelevant) in light of contemporary culture.

1. The raising of well adjusted, moral, productive citizens is neither foolish nor irrelevant in any culture, no matter how contemporary.

2. Broad rules that protect the institution of marriage may fail the consitancy check in some cases. That does not invalidate the need for marriage, or for its protection.

3. Gay marriage is unproductive every time, and thus does not warrant special protection.

[The Green Goblin]

Broad rules that protect the institution of marriage may fail the consitancy check in some cases.

That's completely unacceptable and immoral, as it is discrimination against taxpaying gay citizens.

[steve-b]

Broad rules that protect the institution of marriage may fail the consitancy check in some cases.

According to the rules of logic, a single exception defeats a universal generalization.

If you wish to explicitly admit that your argument is not based on logic, then of course there will be no further point in pointing out such exceptions.