Martin, sorry I didn’t mean to ignore your comment; much of what I said to Gerrit applies to you as well.

Divorce is the big threat to marriage, not SSM!
Heterosexuals have needed no help from homosexuals to make a circus out of marriage.
Don’t get me wrong, I think a bad marriage is worse than a divorce, I just make this point to say that the sanctity of marriage is being threatened by divorce; there is no reason to think that SSM will do it extra damage.

In fact, some statistics indicate that in areas where SSM is legal, divorce rates dropped. It doesn’t surprise me; it’s likely that homosexuals are all the more motivated to get married and share their life with someone they love because of their struggle to have their relationship legalised.

I do understand your point about marriage being the best protection of the rights of females and the rights of children; but homosexual couples want their rights protected as well, besides, lesbians can have children and homosexual men can adopt a child. Their children should be protected, too. Otherwise the kids of homosexuals are being treated as second rate citizens as well.

I see what you mean by the difference between ‘slippery slope’ and ‘fallacious argument’, so what I call slippery slope are really fallacious arguments because they’re not relevant to the issue in question. To say that SSM would have all these other consequences is fallacious because there is no relation between them.

If we say that allowing people to walk around the city armed with guns, then it would be a valid argument to say that this will likely lead to more shootings. Guns and killings can be associated logically.

But to say that, for example, SSM would lead to sex with animals or with siblings, or to group sex is a flawed argument because homosexuals are interested in same sex people, like heterosexuals are interested in opposite sex people and homosexuals are no more into sex with animals or with their siblings than heterosexuals.

Celivia why is it that you cannot accept the views of others? I have set out matters considerably and made known that “marriage" is between “a man and a woman” and this principle is embedded in the Constitution! This, as at the time the Framers of the Constitution did not contemplate that homosexual would pursue the rights of heterosexuals, that is what are benefits.

It is not a slippery-slope argument but simply views!

One of my brothers having fathered three children in a marriage turned out to be bi-sexual and later had a sex change and became a woman, became married and became a widow. I knew “it” as a brother, before I left The Netherlands.

Now, “it” went to live in Israel and automatically was entitled to citizenship because of Jewish heritage.

I oppose killing people, not on religious grounds, and my wife who practice religion often talks about how she likes certain politicians to be killed. Her conduct underlines to me not to get involved in religion, even so she call herself being a Christian.

Anyhow, personally, I could not care less if homosexual have something going on in “their” bedroom as that something I loose any sleep over.

However, when they are trying to pretend to be in a “marriage” then I do care because the institution of marriage os for heterosexual couples!

To try to make a simple example.

If you work casual then you cannot demand to get the same benefits as those who work as permanent. The employment conditions are simply different.
Now, if you then were given the opportunity to become a permanent employee but your employer would be faced that you still want to work at your own leisure and times as if you were temporary employed then more then likely he will tell you to buss off. It is one or the other.

The institution of marriage between a man and a woman. Simple as that! If homosexual want a permanent relationship then they can get their own kind of status but leave the “marriage” alone