Chris C,
You've put it the best way it can be described. It's a misuse of the meaning of the word marriage. By all means if these people want to spend their live like this, let them but we simply can not let the word marriage be used for that co-habitation. Invent a new word but do not use ours.

Whilst I agree with parts of the article I lost interest when I hit the one sided sexist generalisations. I'll provide some alternatives, not to suggest that it's always the woman's fault but a s a counter to Valerie's sexist examples.

"Legalising gay marriage would prevent many fatal mixed-sex marriages in which women married horrid men for the sake of having children" - alternatively it would leave some poor woman in a vile marriage where she had mistakenly married a horrid woman only interested in the marriage for the benefits it brings to her interest in raising her children. It might also save some men who marry expecting companionship and find themselves dominated and controlled by a woman with a massive sense of entitlement (or they could marry another man with those issues).

"It would give more chance to children who now are brought up in single-carer households because women left a horrible mixed marriage or had children without a partner. " - some could start a new horrible same sex marriage bringing all their existing problems with them.

"Now these women can marry another woman and bring up children whom they love, in safety. " - Not sure about alternatives for this, child abuse is not gendered but rather strongly tied to "disadvantage", two active parents are less likely to abuse or neglect kids than someone on their own but the stats don't suggest that another woman will be any safer than a man.

"They would probably be gentle fathers." - as are most fathers.

The article does nothing to add value to the case for same sex marriage, it's based on sexist stereotypes that undermine the case that should be made.

I do think we do great harm when we effectively force people into heterosexual marriages where their orientation does not go that way. Harm to all involved but Valerie's backhanders aimed at men don't address that issue.

R0ber

Thank you, Valerie.

Excellent to read a lateral opinion, and a delight to hear the word ‘horrid’ again.

You raise excellent questions, some of which have already been answered here in Europe and elsewhere.

Your proposed "decade’s trial of same-sex marriage" has been done. There are 37 countries in Western Europe. Of these, 21 have same sex marriages or civil unions already, and another 12 have legislation currently under discussion. The results are that none of the fears of critics of same-sex marriage have been realised.

@Chris C, Yuyutsu and individual: No, it is just not true that “Marriage is the exclusive and life-long union of one man and one woman.”

Different cultures at different points in history have held a range of definitions. Your definition reflects a fairly recent understanding - and quite a good one (which happens to be my personal preference). But we cannot claim it is the only definition or understanding of marriage, can we?

So Pericles is right once again. Grrr …

@progressive pat, re “If gay marriage was sustainable it would've started thousands of years ago.” Yes. It did. Just google gay unions in antiquity, or in the Bible or whatever.

The history of gay unions is a long and impressive one. It seems same-sex marriage of some sort has always been with us, but social acceptance has waxed and waned. We are emerging from a homophobic period of history now.

@runner, regarding children: reputable studies into parenting outcomes confirm that kids with same-sex parents generally do better than kids with opposite-sex parents, both in education and socialisation. This is probably a result of same-sex parents being aware they are in a minority, are pioneers, and hence are under intense scrutiny. So maybe when same-sex parents are accepted as normal and the pressure is off, test results will even out.

But for now, the evidence just does not support your position. It supports Valerie's.

You have probably seen this excellent clip from a government hearing in the US:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3YSfNKSwFk

@runner: "Just open your eyes to tribal living where kids rarely grow up with their natural mum and dad together. The results are clear.."

Quite so; after all, most of them grow up to be black, and we certainly don't want that happening here, do we?

This must be the most original argument against gay marriage yet -- the risk of raising picanninies.

>>Quite so; after all, most of them grow up to be black, and we certainly don't want that happening here, do we?<<

Why you racist bastard Jon :P

Tribalism does not imply high levels of melanism. Almost every culture on earth started out as a tribal society. Despite - or maybe because of - the wicked social engineering of the gay lobby in these primitive societies many of them progressed to the level of civilisation.

>>The results are clear for anyone not wanting their social engeering hobbies exposed.<<

I assume these are the results you are alluding runner: the social engineering by the gay lobby in the Neolithic tribes around the mouth of the River Tiber inevitably led to the founding of the mighty Roman Empire.

You should think yourself lucky runner - the gay lobby back then were a lot more powerful: they even managed to persuade people that it would be a good idea for wolves to raise children - and you complain that it is perverse for two men to raise children! But strangely enough you never complain about the perversity of one man raising children. What's up with that?

The Roman Empire led to the Holy Roman Empire then the Roman Catholic Church then their Protestant offshoots until we end up here and now with whatever weird happy-clappy church you happen to belong to. So next time you're condemning the gay lobby just remember that without the gay lobbyists in the tribes of ancient Italy there would have been no Roman civilisation and that Christianity would never have gained the political clout or the popularity it enjoys today. You would never have even heard of the religion you use to justify your bigotry. Makes you think doesn't it?

Probably not in your case.

Cheers,

Tony

'reputable studies into parenting outcomes confirm that kids with same-sex parents generally do better than kids with opposite-sex parents, '

very reputable I am sure Alan. Reputable studies is often code for dishonest outcomes such as those produced by gw alarmist. Visit any prison in the US and you will find up to 90% of men who were brought up fatherless. No doubt a video could be produced of a successfull single mum. So what!