You miss the point of my original essay on gay marriage by a mile. I’m not concerned that procreation will cease as a result of legalizing gay marriage. In fact, I find that highly unlikely as any reasonable person would.
Come off it! You said over and over that the issue is survival of the species. That we can't assume that enough people would remain heterosexual to assure the continuation of the human race.
But at some point between here and the end of time laws will be made to govern our activity. There must be a barometer by which the enactment of those laws is measured. What better barometer can we use to define the difference between good laws and bad than their impact on the human future?
Except you just said that you are not concerned that procreation would cease. So what are you saying now? Because it is theoretically possible, even though "any reasonable person" knows that it won't happen, you think it's good enough reason to ban behavior that you find unsavory?
In other words, you rationalized being against gay marriage because to say it's immoral is against your atheist posture. What bullshit!
I had you pegged as a libertarian. It turns out you're not. You're just a garden variety right wing parrot, against whatever the right wing blogs happen to be railing against.