Did you not notice that prior to 2004 marriage was universally defined as the Union of a MAN and a WOMAN. None of the "drastic changes" that you claim involved a change in that fact.
I hate to break it to you, but if Marriage is not linked to procreation, AS VIRTUALLY EVERY UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASE TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE HAS INDICATED, then there is no business for government to be involved in issuing marriage licenses in the first place.
Government only licenses marriage because the basic assumption is that children will/can result from the union and government has an obligation to protect and encourage behavior that will result in the furthering of civilization and the human race.
Government doesn't license marriages to endorse a particular union.
Homos can't reproduce. You can't change that basic biological fact. And no, the fact that some couples cannot have children does not change the basic biology involved.
“Homos can’t reproduce. You can’t change that basic biological fact. And no, the fact that some couples cannot have children does not change the basic biology involved.”
Homosexual couples can and do reproduce, and have many of the same options available as any infertile heterosexual couple. What “basic biology” are you talking about? Want to be more specific? You write with such passion, but you don’t back up your statements. If you do believe marriage should only be permitted between individuals who can and will produce biological children without intervention, then you must believe infertile heterosexual couples should be denied the right to marry. And if you don’t, why? You can’t just say “because!” You have to come up with a reason.
I agree with you, though, the government may have no business issuing marriage licenses in the first place. That would be a good solution at this point. Take out the word “marriage” from civil unions and leave that to religions. Give opposite and same-sex couples civil unions/domestic partnerships/what-have-you for legal purposes.