Welcome to Gaia! ::

I have no idea what you're talking about. You should really try to be more clear. Speaking in metaphor is one thing, but you're simply not making sense.

An argument was made, according to this thread, by an atheist that involved depopulation. However, the planet is overpopulated as it is, and since only 1/10 or so people are gay, it would really be more of a benefit than anything else, from an anthropological perspective.

I've heard many (I'll throw a couple sources that go into secular arguments against gay marriage below).

The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

The Case Against

Magnuson on legal aspects: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6gWM36_gXI

Most far left liberals are typically not open minded enough to even briefly look over some of the arguments made in articles like the two I posted above which makes discussion and consideration of the points sort of difficult.

There not religious but they aren't good either.
I took a look at the first link and it was just talking of how it would cause problems for other marriage cases such as incest. However, that is a poor excuse for an argument.
The second link was mostly on reproduction which can easily be tampered with.
I couldn't see the third one because I can't use my speakers.

*nods* Although I'm not sure how that applies here. Did any of the sources try to make a case that something being lawful means it must necessarily than be correct? I know the video didn't, I didn't see it in any of the articles either but I didn't read through them front to back so I could have missed it.

Well, I am opened on some things but you can't limit humans by politics. I found not that much reason on WHY there couldn't be homosexual marriage. The only things there related to reproduction and not only were they half/half what-if questions, the other half could just be debunked.
Again, I was opened minded on this before and it didn't hold too much water to an argument.

Concerning the first article, the arguments mainly rely on how tradition marriage are supposed to properly reflect how the sexes interact with each other and that marriage is supposed to benefit society by procreation and being productive members of said society.

The thing is though that our society structure is changing. Traditional gender roles are changing or becoming non-existent. While different it's not necessarily a bad thing. Things will have to be ironed out but it can be ironed out. While there seems to be an argument against children living in fatherless homes, it seems to ignore that there are individuals within homosexual relationships that can take up different gender roles. More research will be needed of course to make a conclusion but it's assuming that gender roles are fixed with one's biological sex which studies have shown this is not the case.

Finally it assumes that to insure investment in a society and government, one has to have a family interest at stake. Well how family is defined is currently being redefined to reflect our societal changes. Government is going to change, scary as that is, it's going to happen. When the US government decides to recognize these 'new' families, will there be more participation of these 'new' families within the government.

I'll have to examine the other articles later.

And that's exactly why I said what I said. I don't care if it's a legal right. The law is irrelevant. The logic there is still begging the question for the very same reason- Gay marriage is wrong because it is illegal. It is illegal because it is wrong.

Invalid logic. Try again.

There were more arguments than the ones based on human reproduction which do have their merits but eventually break apart (my opinion even after reading the arguments based around the necessity of having a father and mother in order to ensure the best scenario for the development of human young).

You must be some sort of genius though, to go through the information so fast while at the same time giving it some thought, either that or you fit into a category similar to the first one I mentioned: Most far left liberals are typically not open minded enough to even briefly look over some of the arguments made in articles like the two I posted above which makes discussion and consideration of the points sort of difficult

Maybe I'm being rude here but I don't think you really looked into it. You couldn't have. Take some time...think about it. Meditate over what being fair and open-minded really means. A quick glance with your mind already made up doesn't fit the category of open-minded but maybe I'm the only one who thinks that.