You are 100% wrong.
Straight couples who do not or can not have children STILL support the marriage for promulgation of society paradign.
There is always the reasonable possiblity that they will end up being parents. The issue of love to establish marriage has no place in law. You must not and can not have judges deciding if a marriage "had love". It is just too absurd. (What will we have a Love-o-meter to determine the alimony amounts?)
Society rewards an insitution not the individuals recreational sex. Marriage is NOT a mere contract. Mere contracts can not be altered annually by legislature with regards to divorce and support laws. Someone who married in 1950 under one set of divorce laws, got divorced in the 60's or 70's or 80's under different sets of laws.
Everything you speak of is just parroting the new DNC talking point put forth by liberal professor guru Prof. Lakoff.
Sorry but like lackoff, your points have no validity in the law or history of law with regards to marriage.
"There is always the reasonable possiblity that they will end up being parents."
An excellent point; adoption is always an option for those who cannot have children. And for those who do not want children now, may want to create a family later on. Fair enough.
"Everything you speak of is just parroting the new DNC talking point put forth by liberal professor guru Prof. Lakoff.
Sorry but like lackoff, your points have no validity in the law or history of law with regards to marriage."
I'm not going to pretend to know the ins-and-outs of the law or the history of law; I was voicing my opinion. I've never listened to Prof. Lakoff, so to imply that I'm "parotting" his talking point is a little off base on your part, though it might seem a coincidence, if that's what he's preaching. My response to the poster was based solely on his perspective, and nothing more.