What Marriage Neuterists don't understand, can't hurt them?

In a frank admission, a marriage neuterists I've been conversing with in another forum has listed the things that he doesn't understand. Remember the old phrase, "what you don't know can't hurt you?" Well lets look at what they claim they don't know from this one very frank admission from a marriage neuterist.

I've organized it this way. The author of the comment enumerated his points, and they are the primary numbers associated with the arguments. I've further divided them into sub-points, and that enumeration correlates to the responses below the main points. So in the future, I will refer to these by their numbers. For instance argument 1.3 will correlate to Sean's argument 1, and the 3rd subpoint I replied to within it.

1.I don’t understand how marriage is legally linked to procreation[1], since elderly couples who can’t make babies anymore[2], and other infertile couples[2], are free to marry. And nobody has to get married who has kids[3]. Yet same-sex couples, who also can’t make babies, aren’t allowed to get married[4]. How are a gay couple’s non-babies different from an elderly couples non-babies[5]?

1. The legal link was already shown in the judicial decisions which explicitely recognize that link, and how that link is a valid and rational state interest in making such an institution be about the procreative type relationship. So that Sean doesn't understand this, even after the link was shown with third party authoritative sources, is a frank admission indeed!
2. Neither of these couples provide an exception for marriage's recognition of the procreative type of relationship, since they are (you guessed it) procreative types of relationships. Infertility only happens in the procreative type relationship where fertility is expected. For more on this, refer to the Arizona decision previously noted on Opine.
3. There is no legal requirement of totalitarian enforcement for an institution to be recognized as having an explicit purpose. So why does Sean expect it here, as if it were? Sean doesn't explain, but then again this is simply where he admits it is something he doesn't understand. A frank admission, I think, so perhaps if he doesn't understand it then to try to find any reason in it is fruitless.
4. A same-sex couple isn't even a procreative type relationship, so it would provide the exception to the rule that Sean has read into infertile couples. Because if he finds that exception in the infertile, then why wouldn't he and others find it in the same-sex relationship? But again, the point is Sean is admitting to what he doesn't understand -- even when it is so clear and understandable.
5. As R.K. recently said to a similar argument, "[D]o you understand basic mathematics? Do you understand the difference between every positive number and zero? Or do you believe every number less than 100 is equal to zero (where percentages are concerned)? To say that a form of sex which very frequently produces new human beings is no more important to society than a form of sex which never does has to involve nothing less than an act of personal denial." Children may be found created in smaller numbers among some procreative types than others, but the number is still not zero.

2.I don’t understand how, if we know that being married is good for people and the children they’re raising[1], why we would let some couples with children marry, but not others[1]. If marriage is good for children, shouldn’t we want ALL couples raising children to get married (unless there’s some reason for them not to marry)[2]?

1. Marriage is good for the man, woman, and child they potentially have together. That is the core of responsible procreation. As Op-Ed noted: "The State and I cannot ignore the responsibility of what my wife and I can create. My marriage is a commitment to my spouse, but even more relevant to the state it is a commitment to my children. Barring death, I will be there for my children even after they are capable of caring for themselves and their own children. "Same-sex partners want to marginalize the commitment to my children with a definition of marriage as simply an acknowledgement that my wife and I love each other. Inviting government to take an interest in my feelings for my wife opens up a Pandora's box of unprecedented government intrusiveness. The fact that government has had no interest in feelings to date is reflected by the fact that the word "love" is not in current marriage law anywhere. Even when two people are divorcing they cannot use a lack of love as grounds." And that is quite the difference.
2. The difference noted in 2.1 shows how helping one can undercut the other, they are contradicting models of marriage which produce differences in what we recognize and protect about relationships. It doesn't mean that both can't be protected, but they can't be protected with the same program. I explore this in more depth in my "Parent Trap" series.

3.I don’t understand how marriage has to be limited to opposite-sex couples when five states and the nation’s capital allow same-sex couples to marry too[1]. Doesn’t that “redefine” marriage to be between two consenting adults not otherwise ineligible[2]? Are those states and DC gonna get in trouble for not knowing that marriage has to be between opposite-sex couples only[3]? What about the other states poised to legalize same-sex marriage, or who recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions[3]?

1. Because when you replace one institution with another, you no longer have the former institution even if you call the new one with the same name. Those places no longer have access to the former institution, and you've given no real rational reason that people should be limited from entering into what was formerly called marriage. In short, the commeter doesn't understand because his language has become inadequate to describe exactly what change took place between marriage formed in the recognition of responsible procreation, and the one formed out of just what same-sex couples can do.
2. Yes. The definition of marriage is neutered in two ways with the same action. By removing the reference to "one man and one woman" in the definition, you remove its reference to its constitution of gender integration. And by removing "man and woman" from the definition you are losing the ability to explicitely reference those rights and responsbilities which arise from what men and women can do together, in this case that is "procreate".
3. The harm seen in those states is already evident.

4.I don’t understand how it’s legal to let straight couples get married, but not gay couples[1], if the country’s constitution says that all citizens have to be treated equally[2], unless there’s a rational public purpose to do otherwise[3]. Aren’t gay Americans citizens, too[2]?

1. It isn't illegal, it isn't a ban. Hence the problem in understanding comes from the bad premise in the question. If one asks instead, how are procreative type relationships recognized and regulated with marriage licenses and certificates, when same-sex couples are regulated with CU's, DP's or RB's? The answer is much more clear, because marriage targets the unique needs of procreation for those who engage in it, and those created by it. And CU's (etc...) target the more general need for mutual trust among adults.
2. Is the relevance of constitutional protection being accurately recognized? Again as R.K. noted, it is a matter of relationships that are different -- not people. R.K. shows a more accurate description of the equality claim, one that is more consistent between denoting what is a relationship and what is an individual. In it, one sees more clearly just what the constitution protects (in this case, marriage expecting both a man and a woman in each marriage), and what it does not (discrimination against a gender). "1) gay individuals are legally equal to straights, therefore 2) gay individuals should have the same right to marry the individual of their choice. But gays cannot be satisfied with marriage as traditionally defined, as they cannot enjoy the type of sexual intimacy around which marriage is defined. Therefore the type of sexual activity which gays can be comfortable with must be treated as equal to the type which marriage has been built around, and hence marriage must be redefined accordingly, and all types of sexual acts must be regarded as equally consummative, or equal in their centrality to marriage."
3. Acknowledging a purpose is simply acknowledging that an opposite sex couple can do something unique, and society has an interest in that unique quality. The law doesn't have to require enforcement of that purpose with mathematical precision (law enforcement is never that perfect), nor does it have to violate the privacy of the couple involved. It simply means it is important enough to encourage good behavior, and in this case good behavior is taking responsibility for how we procreate, in case that happens -- for the sake of the spouse you create the child with and the child themself.

5. I don’t understand why judges in Iowa are bad for doing their job[1], that is, interpreting their state’s constitution and the constitutionality of the state’s laws. Why do we have judges if we are just gonna get mad at them for doing what we pay them to do[1]?

1. If they intepreted it fairly in respect to the arguments given to both sides, then they would be doing their job. But as it is, only made its decision in complete contempt of the purpose of responsible procreation, a purpose that has been ruled as rational and constitutional by numerous state and constitutional laws. Where is Iowa's constitution different than those of the states that have affirmed the equality of marriage in expecting both a man and a woman in each marriage?