Gabe,
I can assure you that at least in the case of this young (26 year old) person, and quite probably many others, their support for gay marriage doesn't stem from a failure to engage with the 'real' issues at play or a blind acceptance of a socialist agenda. It doesn't even stem from a strong committment to gay rights; I'm not gay and I don't know any gay people, so I'm no more concerned with their rights than I am with the rights of heterosexual strangers.

The reason I support gay marriage is because your mob can't formulate a sound argument against it - instead you rely on appeals to emotion, conclusions which don't follow from premises (which are often themselves dodgy) and a truckload of fallacies. Then you sit back and pat yourselves on the back for your solid 'reasoning'. And you wonder why cynical young folk with functional critical faculties find this approach unpersuasive? I'm still waiting for y'all to come up with even one decent argument against gay marriage - once you have, we can see how it stacks up against the arguments in favour of it. You never know, I might just find it more convincing and change sides.

And for the record: I consider the legion of toppled statues littering the former USSR evidence enough that Socialism is a BLOODY STUPID NOTION. Smith was right and Marx was wrong, no matter what the infinitesimally small minority of commies in this country will tell you. But I hardly see what this has to do with gay marriage.

The Acolyte Rizla,
You have not presented one biological or scientific reason for same sex couples to be registered as married. You have merely made lots of empty claims about others posts withour demonstrating scientific evidence.

Marriage has always been associated with the promotion of fertility from the union of two sexes. That is why flowers and rice are associated with the ceremony (now confetti). Same sex unions will never be fertile, or produce children naturally from their union.

If the male homosexual has fertile sperm and the lesbian healthy ovum and can give birth, then they are not born sexually homosexual but disoriented by some conditioning.

It is true the marriage vows deal with relationship between a lawful husband and lawful wife (note gender) and property as shared, Why? Because they are equally committing to setting up house for the purpose of a biological sexual union that may produce family.

Marriage was originally for the young and for life, and in the case of death by one; other members of family stepped in to care for the family. Everyone knew who was genetically related to whom. They could find their family, such is the emotional bonds. My wife was adopted by her girl friends parents at eight after her father died in the bomings of London before she was born and mother died when she was eight. Though she speaks of her adopted parents as mum and dad, her relationship to cousins are by genetics.

Whose child is if in the case of same sex parents leaving an orphan? Who is responsible would it not be the contributing gene donor? Who should the Law consider responsible?

One does not have to breed to be married, as marriage is about two people committing to each other.
My Dad and stepmother cannot make babies because of their age, is their marriage a falsehood.

Philo,
You seem to be confusing the state of matrimony with the act of sexual reproduction, or disingenuously attempting to conflate the two. They are not the same thing, or they would have identical or very similar definitions in the dictionary and would be able to be used interchangeably. They actually have quite different definitions, and cannot be used interchangeably. I assure you that you will never hear a biologist speaking of 'marriage and asexual reproduction' - it's always 'sexual and asexual reproduction'. Nor will you find sexual reproduction counsellors helping couples with their matrimonial difficulties - they are invariably marriage counsellors. Can you see the difference now? You've also managed to confuse 'fertility' and 'homosexuality'. Again, they're totally different concepts. I'm guessing English wasn't your strong suit at school.

You're quite right that I haven't provided any scientific reason in favour of homosexual marriage. This is because it is not a scientific matter. Science is a system of knowledge which utilises the scientific method to explain the universe & its contents. It does not formulate policy, and it does tell people how they should behave. I'm guessing Science wasn't your strong suit either. The system of knowledge which deals with how people should behave is called 'ethics'. Ethical questions should and can take scientific knowledge into account, but it is not the place of science to answer ethical questions or formulate policy, and never has been.

Continued from above.
But let's play it your way for a moment and ignore other relevant concerns to focus on the scientific ones. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a compelling scientific reason to legalise homosexual marriage - but nor can I think of any compelling scientific reason to prohibit it (regarding your point about homosexual intercourse not producing issue: it is a scientific fact that two humans of the same sex can't sexually reproduce. But in many instances, it's a scientific fact that two humans of different sexes can't sexually reproduce either. So the fact that homosexuals can't sexually reproduce cannot constitute a compelling argument against their getting married without also constituting a compelling argument against some heterosexuals getting married).

In the end it doesn't matter that there are no compelling scientific arguments for or against, because there is a compelling moral argument which I regard as axiomatic, i.e. the principle of liberty: " the state or any other social body has no right to coerce or restrict the individual unless the individual causes harm to others, crucially, the individual's own physical or moral harm is not justification for constriction of their liberty" (from wikipedia), or in John Stuart Mill's (peace be upon him) own words "over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign".

The Acolyte Rizla,
Obviously you totally ignore the biological sciences, that only two persons of complementary sex can reproduce. The term marriage means to bring together two substances to form a new substance. The term marry is also used in metalurgy, as well as modern plastics. It means blending to form a new substance.

It has everything to do with the bonding of two genders to reproduce the species. Your isolation from the real world into a cocoon that defines marriage as merely love between two persons, opens the way for adults to marry children, as in Islam. They constitute a larger proportion of our society than Gays.