Since a core problem in our society is an increasing population I think it best to modify institutions that are based on procreation to give procreation a lesser priority.

I favour redefining marriage so that it is a commitment between individuals regardless of the sex, the reproductive capacity and desire for reproduction of those individuals.

I am involved in a stable heterosexual marriage and am the product of a very tumultuous heterosexual marriage. As a child I wished many times that my parents would get divorced so I could get away from both of them. I question the idea that heterosexual marriage is the best way to raise children. I don't think it was in my case.

I've been waiting patiently for someone to explain clearly why same-sex marriage is wrong... I'm still waiting.

What about heterosexual couples who marry with no intention of ever having children? What about gay/lesbian couples who want to marry without any intention of ever raising children?

I think AJinDarwin is right when he/she says marriage is understood as "an economic unit and a financial arrangement far more than its usefulness to proclaim true love or even a haven or otherwise for Children".

I ask again, gay marriage: why not? What are you afraid of?

Blaise writes: "Society departing from the favourable norm in this way would adversely impact children, forcing the state to have a larger role in their welfare, such as in education and health."

Jees, Blaise, what planet are you living on? This is already happening, but it has nothing to do with gay couples. The institution of marriage means nothing anymore - no-fault divorce, endless permutations of 'blended families', single parents in abundance (and, in many cases, incentivised by the social welfare system to seek out that status) - I could go on.

Furthermore, most straight couples of MY Generation (X) don't bother to get married, even when they procreate, because de factos couples receive everything married couples do. So why bother?

When you break it down, the simple fact is this. The government controls a status for relationships between two people that is currently discriminatory towards same-sex couples. Any meaning that status had with respect to children has been completely severed by both technology and other developments in the law. So maintaining that discrimination on the basis of the children question is frankly ridiculous.

Thank god you're almost alone in your generation, Blaise - you deserve to be.

It is good to see that you are also standing up to the groupthink. A clear and reasoned article on marriage, thank you.

To Kipp. Blaise presents a reasoned thoughtful essay. It's pleasing to hear from her generation. I don't agree with her conclusions. Nor do I agree that her lack of presentation of "affiliations" does anything whatsoever to diminish her aricle's content.

"It would change the institution of marriage from being centred around the production and well-being of children to being based on the self-fulfilment of adults."

With this statement, I think you've nailed it like no one else. I sense deep selfishness within the gay community. When was the last time you heard of gay groups doing anything charitable or caring for anyone but themselves? All gay groups are concerned with is themselves. Media will put the couples with kids on the front page but that is not the norm. The norm is very selfish, self-centered people focused only on what they perceive that they are being denied.