The article repeats itself. It lacks any compelling justification for same-sex marriage. It fails to acknowledge that homosexuals account for only about 2% of the population, that the majority of them are promiscuous engaging in short-term sexual relationships, and that longer-term relationships would not be attractive to all but a few of them.

Analogies such as, " I am male, and I would like to be recognised as the mother of my kids" , demonstrate dysfunctionality , and certainly would confuse any socalled 'children of the relationship'.

Same-sex marriage is about politics not people. Homosexuals should consider themselves adequately served by civil unions, and all other legislative measures except marriage.

In any case, the institution of marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman, and needs to be protected as such, if society is to continue to flourish.

Its easy to make sweeping statements, but worthless without evidence, now can anyone give reason against same sex marriage, instead of its mine and you cannot have it!

Kipp

you don't want reasons just acceptance of the perverse. Plenty of good reasons have been stated numerous times.

Raycom, 'demonstrate dysfunctionality'

My god it's an analogy mocking the idea of wanting the word marriage rather than civil unions. Where did you go to school, or are you just too keen to hate gay people that you just jump right in there.

Runner it is said that right wing religous fanatics, are perverse to the extreme! We fought WII to erase this type of dictatorship

Marriage is an institution--it doesn't have an essence. It has not always been between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others--there still are societies where a man can have four wives; and there have been ones in what is now central asia where the ruler had many wives and a good many concubines as well.

It didn't provide good conditions for women--but the societies did not collapse as a result.
Louis XIV kept a mistress as part of his household, and French society did not collapse as a result.

Refusing to allow the concept of marriage to be stretched is like declining to accept that zero is a number (as many did when the idea was introduced), or rejecting surds, negative numbers and imaginary numbers.