No, it was a distraction, like most of your arguing tactics. Just as this one is. You successfully derailed the thread. Congratulations.
Personally, I find the arguing style quite telling. Mr. De Selby is practicing his craft on us and it's interesting to note the evading and avoiding. Always coming back with questions rather than fleshing out his point.
The style seems to be attempting to win the argument without proving the point. I must assume it's a technique taught in law schools to forever avoid the point and attack the opposing argument rather than taking the opposing arguments seriously and providing counter points to them.
Okay, well let's try this. I'll summarise the arguments against the Supreme Court decision here. Tell me where I've gone wrong.
1. Most societies prohibit gay marriage
2. The dictionary adopts this prohibition in its definition of marriage
3. Procreation - only relationships that could result in biological children of the married deserve legal protection
4. There is no discrimination against gays to remedy because they could choose to enter straight marriages
5. There is no legal difference between marriage and some fancy contract
Therefore: banning gay marriage is fine and the Supreme Court got it wrong.
It looks to me like every single one of those points has been addressed explicitly and directly here.