I have to agree with Ned on this. Here is my rebuttal to the radio show that was linked. Note that the radio show is quite long. Nonetheless, the first quarter hour or so seemed to capture the commentator's views in a nutshell:

Radio: Marriage is about procreation.
I say: This seems a bit shaky to start with. Later on, in support of his belief that 'Marriage is not about love', the commentator states the fact that the clerk who grants the license does not ask if the couple are in love. An analagous argument can be made about procreation. No clerk requires 'fertility certificates' at the time of marriage. But even this is too mild. If marriage were about procreation or the care of children, then licenses would only be granted to those who were adopting or pregnant. And then it would be granted to couples raising kids regardless of their relation to one another or gender.

But even if I grant the argument that marriage should be offered if there is the potential for procreation, then I would say that homosexuals would still have as much right to marriage as the rest of us. Because, they can still adopt. Through artificial conception, they can still give birth. So his line of reasoning in this regard is flawed as well.

Neither can it be accepted that 'through thousands of years, the human race has learned that the best way to raise a child is to have a father and a mother'. This is the worst kind of argument from authority. As though our ancestors had key insights into the world because they are long dead. Slavery was an ancient social institution which was supported by most of our ancestors who also thought of marriage as between a man and a woman. If they were so wrong in the one case, how can they be infallible in the other?

Radio: Marriage is not about love.
I say: Marriage is a part of our culture, and the nature of marriage can only be judged by how it is evidenced of our culture. Nearly everyone who dreams of marriage in our society dreams of love. If you told any yound lady that they should marry the a random guy quickly, instead of waiting for the right one, to promote procreation at the expense of the heart. She'd they'd laugh in your face.

Does this mean that every marriage is conceived in love and remains that way forever? No. But the fact that there are corrupt cops and criminals who get away doesn't mean that the police don't strive for the ideal of justice. Why would marriage have to be perfect to epitomize love if the police aren't perfect and epitomize justice?

Radio: Love does not equal marriage. There are those you love whom you should not marry.
I say: This is a bit of a straw man. First, from ancient times there has been a recognition of more than one species of love. There is platonic/fraternal/sororal/family love, and there is passionate/concupiscant(sp?)/sonnet/marriage love. Second, love is an ideal that people follow to a greater or lesser extent. Even if there is somebody whom you love passionately, you may have higher priorities (for many people this is a career) such that you never marry or the marriage cools off. This is not a function of how related marriage is to love. Rather, it is a function of how valued both love and marriage are to an individual.

Radio: Marriage does not require love.
I say: Marriages (and couples of all sorts) break up every day because they've 'lost that lovin' feeling'. Often there are other factors that hold a marriage together. Routine, desire for things to stay the same, social embarrassment. But even in the face of these, people break apart when the love is gone. While two people may not necessarily love each other to be married, love is certainly an essential to a healthy marriage.

Radio: Some heterosexuals have commitment or families without marriage.
I say: This really has no bearing on the issue. If I were to say to a black person in the sixties 'well, some white people like to sit at the back of the bus', I don't think they'd be mollified.

Radio: Public gives affirmation through marriage.
I say: The commentator is right in a sense. But these homosexual couples don't want every person in the U.S. to say 'I agree that what you do is right.'. They want the public embodied by the government to affirm their commitment. This is always a sticking point for those who think that the law is a moral force to be wielded in the face of 'those heathens'. But this is an incorrect view of the law. If homosexual marriage were legalized, it would be no more a statement that 'homosexuality is good' than the fact that alcohol is legal mean 'drinking is good'. They want a legal affirmation, not a moral one. What right have we to say that these two people get priviledges for finding commitment and these other two don't?

Radio: We all have the liberty to marry someone of opposite sex.
I say: Liberty to marry someone of the opposite sex is like liberty to drink only water. As long as you want what the system allows, you are ok. But as soon as you vary from the majority viewpoint, you have run out of liberties. Liberty is truly about leaving the choice and responsibility to the individual. The choice of whom to marry. The responsibility of deciding who is The One. All of these belong to the individual, not the state. If the state stamps its approval on a particularly commonplace sort of contract between two people, that should not give it the right to decid who those two people are.

Radio: They demand that society agrees with homosexuals.
I say: Nothing of the sort. What is demanded is a legal affirmation. You don't have to agree with a writer to give her the freedom to write. You don't have to agree with a drinker to give her the freedom to drink. You don't have to agree with the artist to give him the freedom to create. But right alongside these freedoms, you don't have to agree with the lover to let them commit to their love as deeply as our society supports commitment. For that is what marriage is truly about. And that is what everybody, regardless of their sexual orientation, brings when they decide to marry.

I think the point being made about marriage not being about love is that love is not material to what marriage is. Right or wrong, it seems incorrect to say that gay marriage should be allowed because the two people love each other. The counter examples given in the show seemed (to me) convincing on this point.

Closer to my original point is this. If we are going to make love the issue, then Ned's plea could be turned around as: Gay people will continue to be able to love each other without any change in the law. Now, I know the reply to this is to say that they won't have all the allowances as afforded by society in heterosexual marriage. But, that is the point made in the radio show. Namely, there are lots of relationships of love (or not) that society doesn't grant these allowances. To simply say these allowances should be given to people because they have love for each other and doesn't cause harm to other marriages, doesn't seem persuasive to me. I think there is a simplification of the radio hosts argument and definition of marriage being a particular kind of thing made here. People can listen for themselves and make up there own mind.