Saying that 'marriage is made for the procreation of children' is simply a LIE. It is like my fellows when I was a child used to say that pregnancy occurs when two adults' pubic hairs touch.
But lets put this debate in perspective. The Christian leadership argue three things in relation to marriage equality;
God owns marriage - hence it is sacred; and
Marriage is for the procreation of children.
However, on a closer look, none of these three are linked nor are a criteria for the other.
For this argument, we shall ignore the first argument as that has no co-relation and hence isnt necessary for now.
The second point isnt true either. If God owns marriage, then the Church is wrong on marriage. The Church insists that marriage was established and instituted in the garden of Eden between Adam and Eve. Thus God sanctified that marriage shall be between A man and A woman.
But lets move forward, you notice that God himself did not keep his established institution according to the Bible. From Abrah (Abraham) to Jacob, David, Solomon, etc, God endorsed these men who had more than one wife and in cases, with mistresses. In fact, the same God of the Bible whom the Archbishops defend marriage for today, endorsed kids born through this marriages. Samuel, the great and last Leader-prophet of Israel before a king was finally instituted was born in a polygamous family.
Is that sacred? Does all the above not show that the Church leadership is not doing the will of [their] God? Are they highlighting God as a LIAR or simply a made-up concept which is very INCONSISTENT?
But assuming God is not INCONSISTENT, then the Church's belief is not CONSITENT with God's actions.
The third point then becomes invalid. Marriage is not a criteria for procreation of children; another big LIE. If it is/was, then single women or unmarried couples would simply not be able to conceive.
Secondly, if this third point is valid, then couples who cannot conceive are an evidence of the weakness of God. Also the Prophetess Anna who prophesied when Jesus was brought for dedication must have been an affront to God for marrying only 7 years and with no children, etc.
The leadership of the Church must come clean on their teaching...
Perhaps, there is a loophole somewhere; it is either that
God does not exist; or
God does not own marriage and does not care or
that marriage is not a criteria to conceive.
If the above are true, which it likely seem to be, then the Church is not of God and God is for the Church. In fact, this may be leading us to the truth that if God exists, the Church does not worship and is not in the party of God.
Squarely, the argument about who owns marriage, who made it, who should control it, leads us to a greater truth: Does God really exist? And has anyone REALLY heard or identified God?
Other than the above, it is then obvious, that this debate is about ideological supremacy and there is no fairness.
Remember, Jesus could have repudiated all the prophets for marrying many wives or specify strictly that homosexuality is unacceptable. But he chose to ignore all this and did not get married himself