maricus,

This is essentially just the Appeal to Nature fallacy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature)

<<Our bodies are made (or have evolved if you prefer) for heterosexual sex so anything else is not logical.>>

It also ignores the evidence for the evolution of homosexuality:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.595.7163&rep=rep1&type=pdf
http://scholarworks.uno.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=econ_wp
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691850/pdf/15539346.pdf
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/J_Bailey2/publication/247233162_Is_male_homosexuality_maintained_via_kin_selection/links/00b4952d4c6f539bde000000.pdf
http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/4068897/test_of_homosexual_hypothesis.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ56TQJRTWSMTNPEA&Expires=1480637678&Signature=lFASoq8xXDgK3kwuQYozqkUK1Bg%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DAn_Empirical_Test_of_the_Kin_Selection_H.pdf

<<One of the reasons for marriage throughout history is procreation between the couple which can't happen with SSM and that is not due to some illness or mutation, so it is not logical.>>

This is the Argumentum ad antiquitatem fallacy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition)

<<… it is a violation of God's created order ..>>

This argument counts for nothing until you can demonstrate the existance of your god.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

<<… there is no case for [same-sex marriage] …>>

Yes, there is: equality.

<<… and it should be rejected as it has been throughout the rest of history, …>>

Another Argumentum ad antiquitatem fallacy. Do you mob have anything other than fallacies to support your position?

<<… it is SSM supporters who need to make a case and they have not, indeed cannot.>>

I just did.

Maricus:

“Same-sex marriage is illogical because:”

It is illogical for the same reasons that opposite sex marriage is illogical. No one needs to get married and no good reason has been presented why they do. Of course people have a right to do illogical things but they do not have a right to have the government aid and abet them in their illogical quest. They are welcome to have their church or their ‘community’ witness their behaviour if they so wish but in order to qualify for government involvement they should be able to mount a good argument for that involvement.

As it stands getting married is illogical. It is illogical whether you are homosexual or heterosexual. Governments must make sure that any behaviour to which they are a party is rational. This is their first and foremost priority. Other issues such as discrimination are irrelevant unless the behaviour can first be proven to be reasonable.

‘Marriage equality’ only adds even more irrationality.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman There is no such thing as “same sex marriage”., and never has been.
Marriage is a well established institution in our society, as well as many other societies. Same sex marriage is an invalid term.
If there are same sex unions, whose participants want them institutionalised, then they need to give such unions a name, and seek acceptance by society, and cease telling lies like “marriage inequality, and trying to hijack another word like they did with the word "gay".
Pervertiage might be appropriate. Sodomiage could be seen as excluding women.

Thanks for yet another example of the Argumentum ad antiquitatem fallacy, Leo Lane. You homophobes really don't have anything, do you?

Still no one has demonstrated why the term, 'same-sex marriage', is 'illogical' or 'invalid'.

Anyone else want to give it a crack?

Marriage is between a man and a woman, so “same sex marriage” is a contradiction in terms, and invalid, as you well know, vi.
Howard’s amendment to the Marriage Act did not change the law. It affirmed the existing law by codifying it.
You have nothing, AJ, to justify your assertion of invalidity, and you confirm this by reverting to your puerile, baseless name calling.

What a stupid argument, Leo Lane.

<<Marriage is between a man and a woman, so “same sex marriage” is a contradiction in terms ...>>

So, presumably, when marriage is no longer just between a man and a woman, you'll be fine with it because the term will then be valid.

<<You have nothing, AJ, to justify your assertion of invalidity ...>>

I'm not the one arguing that the term is invalid, Leo. You are. Remember?

<<... and you confirm this by reverting to your puerile, baseless name calling.>>

"Reverting", as if it were something that I was doing before and have had to go back to.

Sorry, Leo, but my name calling doesn't prove any such thing, nor does it absolve you of the fallacy you committed. My name calling remains valid for so long as no one here can provide a rational argument against same-sex marriage. Perhaps you could pray to your non-existent god for one?

By the way, you are in no position to knock someone for name calling.