> My point was that it is an argument that does not equally apply to interracial marriage
I didn't say it could be applied equally, I said it could be applied just as well. Those don't mean quite the same thing. To review, the argument as you presented it was:
"marriage is about biological reproduction"
That exact argument (in almost those exact words) can be and in fact was applied to interracial marriage back when that was still a thing. Look at e.g.:
The first quote is "They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies [not allowing their marriage]." (State v. Jackson. Missouri, 1883)
The rhetorical force of your initial statement came from an accusation that one could not be consistent in denouncing gay marriage while accepting interracial marriage. Once you add additional assumptions, or rely on claims of fact that are true in the one case but false in the other, that does not hold. "Your argument sounds a tiny bit like something that was used to argue for something wrong" is not a good refutation.
As an aside, it looks like the quote is misleadingly truncated in a way that substantively changed the meaning. That said, the full version is still flagrantly factually inaccurate, so the reasoning above remains unchanged.
Cute.
> My point was that it is an argument that does not equally apply to interracial marriage
I didn't say it could be applied equally, I said it could be applied just as well. Those don't mean quite the same thing. To review, the argument as you presented it was:
"marriage is about biological reproduction"
That exact argument (in almost those exact words) can be and in fact was applied to interracial marriage back when that was still a thing. Look at e.g.:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/bet-you-cant-tell-the-differe...
The first quote is "They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies [not allowing their marriage]." (State v. Jackson. Missouri, 1883)