Respectfully, I believe you did miss askel's point. I don't believe she is making an apologia for homosexual marriage generally or painting a moral equivalence between homosexuals and married couples who are unable to have children. I think what she's saying is, there is not all that much difference between a homosexual couple wanting to get married versus a heterosexual couple who regard marriage as a living arrangement terminable at-will and children as a decision or lifestyle choice. Both put their own selfish interests first and foremost. Both act in defiance of God's will and the natural law.
As Peter Kreeft says, the Bible contains the world's oldest and simplest sex instruction manual, with only two simple rules: “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” and “Be fruitful and multiply.” IOW, no sex outside the sacrament of marriage, but within marriage -- the more, the merrier.
There is a sinister relationship between the condom distribution mentality and the abortion-on-demand mentality. The U.S. Supreme Court understood this if only subconsciously, when it found a married couple's “right” to use contraceptives in Griswold v. Connecticut in the same imagined “zone of privacy” that later justified abortion as choice under Roe v. Wade.
Married or unmarried couples who use contraceptives implicitly assert a “right” to engage in sex without any responsibility for bearing and rearing children, who are the natural consequences of sexual activity. Since contraceptives don't always work, couples who experience pregnancy after contraceptive failure inevitably consider themselves justified to have an abortion. After all, why should they be “penalized” because the contraceptive failed? After all, didn't they acted “responsibly” by using contraceptives in the first place? If you assume the answer to both questions is “yes,” then the decision to abort is easily rationalized as a simple correction of a “mistake” that happened only because the contraceptive failed.
The topic of this thread is how does gay marriage damage marriage. If/when we write the obituary for the notion of marriage as sacred union of man and woman, the scapegoating of homosexuals when we decide to “round up the usual suspects” is both irrational and unjust. It's irrational to blame the recent phenomenon of homosexuals getting married for a slew of pathologies and disturbing trends that long predated the spectacle of Rosie and her new “spouse” exchanging their “I do's” without the necessary equipment to consummate the vows. Their “marriage” is a sham of course, but that holds equally true for anyone with the physical tools but not the intention to honor their vows.
There's plenty of blame to go around and the “if it feels good, do it” contraceptive mentality and the perpetrators/enablers of the abortion holocaust are good places to start.
Humanae Vitae was right.
Yes, that does appear to be the case.
Quite frankly, if you spend any amount of time discussng morality and its importance in online forums, you will encounter folks who insist that "homosexual marriage" is the moral equivalent to married heterosexuals without children (regardless of the reason).
I think the point that she made during our discussion that those who accept artificial contraception or fertilization cannot oppose "homosexual marriage" to be quite wrong. If anything, the attention that is currently being focused on this alleged "civil right" can serve as a beacon to call more people to move away from modern interpretations of morality and move towards the morals standards that were delivered to us.
Quite simply, not only are these the laws meant for us by "Nature and Nature's God" (as the Founding Fathers often called it), but they result in healthier, better adjusted, and more noble humans.