Ron Collins
Curiously Confused
Firstly, I acknowledge that you say this was an academic exercise and not a true reflection of your own ideology. I also accept that the above list is supposed to be void of religious concerns. Now, I would like to comment on each.
I do not understand what this means. How does a same sex couple dilute the legal/social concept of a marriage? To me this dilution you speak of will always harken back to religious acceptance or lack thereof.
This is absolutely false. It hinders them from tax benefits, Insurance benefits, social categorization, credit consolidation, and other benefits currently reserved for "Next of Kin" or "Spouse" designations.
The concept of "marriage" has evolved over time. Woman were once considered property. Interracial couplings were forbidden. Non-Comptable religious limitations were imposed. Et Cetera ad nauseum.
It also doesnt stop China from producing low cost foot wear, or locusts from swarming. But it does stop them from taking full advantage of all manner of social advantages afforded married couples and their families. This one is really about restriction by refusal to acknowledge. If I were to tell you that you had to go throughout life unable to speak or write the letters "Q" and "S" it would not hinder your personal appreciation of art and literature. But you would soon find it overwhelmingly restrictive. Its the same concept.
Again, the institution of marriage is ALWAYS evolving. Lets look at how the typical family structure was perceived in the 1850's. The man ran the house. Socially the wife ceased to be acknowledged without first being linked to the man. Many a census record lists the wife as simply Mrs. Johnson. Even in the event of her husbands death she would be known socially as "The Widow Johnson". This concept was not truly broken until the late 1950's to early 1960's. We still hear echos of it today. My point is simply that you can choose any two eras in the history of marriage and the concepts will differ. Sometimes greatly and sometimes with more subtlety. But they will differ. This is representative of a social evolution of the concept. As a mental exercise write down your current concept of what a marriage is and then present this to the average Quaker of the mid 17th century. Are those concepts compatible?
I am going to assume that you are speaking mostly of Ancient Greek and Roman societies. To this I would say that the concept of legal marriage was not to consummate love but to declare a legal line of succession of assets from parent to offspring. Since same sex relationships would not generate a line of secession for asset transfer upon death, the concept was not expanded.
Hmmm, then I guess the elderly, infirm, and sterile among society should likewise be denied the designation regardless of meeting the appropriate gender restrictions? This is just a silly argument.
This just looks like your trying to fill out a list of ten items. Its silly and has no bearing in the modern world. Sure, in the European courts of 1542 it would certainly be applicable but in 2012 it is laughable.
We have already addressed the first part of this. As far as passing on culture and the cohesiveness of society.... I am unsure what the heck you are talking about. Gay and lesbian relationships are part of our culture and in no way threaten the cohesiveness of our society.
Personally, I'll never forget the carnage that played out in the streets and common areas whenever gay couples married in New York. Oh the horror! Wait... thats right... none of that ever happened! Life and society in New York continue to function perfectly fine. As it did in Connecticut, D.C., Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont.
Yes. But, those conditions/limits/requirements have always evolved to reflect the then current societal trend. The concept has always been fluid.
Urban myth. The spread of HIV is not restrictive to sexual orientation. It is spread primarily by sexual promiscuity and indifference to preventive measures. The largest At Risk groups I am aware of are intravenous drug users and sex workers.
Social acceptance. Equality. The concept you have described is not a new argument. The last time I heard it was when it was applied to racial segregation. Separate but equal. Which, I hope we can agree, was an F'ing ridiculous concept to begin with. Lets not repeat that same absurd mistake.
Different concepts. Marriage to farm animals, pieces of machinery, or to bacon are also not covered in the same sex marriage argument.
*GASP* Hold on! You mean I might have to teach my child about confusing concepts or have a running dialogue concerning complex social and societal issues????? Screw that! I'd rather watch American Idol.
The fact is that Mike got kind of butt hurt because somebody (Kim) was able to refute some of the cut and paste bullshit that was thrown out there. Now, does he talk to much and go waaay over board. Sure, but if you don't want to read his remarks and diatribes on religion then just don't read it. Sheesh, some of you "openminded" folks sure do close off when it's something that bothers you. Otherwise you (and I've heard ya do it) tell folks that it's a free forum and if you don't like a post or poster then ignore it. Point is that Angel you are guilty of a double standard. The endless post after post by Kim pisses you off. But, the cursing and yelling by Mike? Not so much. 
Now, finally before I'm accused of being a "religious retard" or fanatic. Let me say this: