Its not rocket science.

MALE..+ FEMALE= CHILDREN by natural..normal processes. (medical complications aside.)

Man is built for woman, and woman for man.

To erect social structures alien to this natural order of things is not only dangerous, but foolhardy. Hindsight is 20/20 but foresight is often blind.

It's only because of a post modern, amoral social foundation which has been growing in the 'post Christian' West which could ever allow such a thing.

*WARNING*..DANGER AHEAD...
The problem which some may not realize, is that without a moral reference point superior to 'lots of people do it' and 'how can it harm' then just about ANYthing ... is fine, as long as you can get enough voices to promote it. I wont even try to list all those things. You have brains.. USE them.

The Doctrinal perspective with which Christians approach this issue, is clearly based on the common sense/natural order which God created.
It should always be recognized that no matter when it is accepted or not that people are 'born' this way or that, the practice and behavior is not 'normal'... there are many behaviors which we consider 'not' normal and sex which animals and children are 2 of the most obvious.

Imagine this, you lead a pet pig into a Synagoque or a Mosque. Up till the moment you entered the confines of such an institution, your pig is no biggy.. Its all a matter of frame of reference.
But if the frame of reference has no boundaries.. well that's plain scary.

"Marriage is about the procreation of the species" according to one poster. And yet people don't need to be married to have children. And married couples are not obliged to have children. There's more to marriage than reproduction.

There's also this nonsensical issue that allowing same-sex marriage would be the end of civilisation as we know it. The implication is that gay people are an incredibly powerful force and any further concessions to them would bring on the end of the world. In this regard, anti-gay ideologues contradict themselves. They say there are too few gays to bother about. Then they turn around and say gays are terrible social threat with "unbridled indulgent sexuality" (bit jealous are we, honey?).

The author says in the final paragraph:

"Marriage is a social institution that has evolved considerably over time, as some of its historic rationales weakened, but for that reason has proven to be durable. It’s hard to see the causal mechanism by which gay marriage could do it any harm, which I think swings the utilitarian calculation back in favour of gay marriage."

This seems to contradict the title "The untilitarian conservative case against gay marriage."

From Stephen Fry’s autobiography, Moab is My Washpot
“There are plenty of other things to be got up to in the homosexual world outside the orbit of the anal ring, but the concept that really gets the goat of the gay-hater, the idea that really spins their melon and sickens their stomach is that most terrible and terrifying of all human notions, love.
That one can love another of the same gender, that is what the homophobe really cannot stand. Love in all eight tones and all five semitones of the word's full octave. Love as agape, Eros and philos; love as romance, friendship and adoration; love as infatuation, obsession and lust; love as torture, euphoria, ecstacy and oblivion (this is beginning to read like a Calvin Klein perfume catalogue); love as need, passion and desire.”

What a beautiful, charitable thing religion is, as it spews forth from the posters on OLO. I particularly enjoy it when they couple moral meanspiritedness with wholly unwarranted patronage — “You have brains. USE them” — and prophecies about the “end of civilisation.”

As I understand it, the religious types have four main points:
* a few Christians find homosexuality unnatural and yucky
* Australia should ban all things that a few Christians find unnatural and yucky
* if gay marriage is legalised, poofs will soon run the world and have enormous power in government, which they will exploit to rape children and practice their perversity on unsuspecting (but, let’s face it, quite saucy) Clydesdales and Cocker Spaniels
* Christians demonstrate their goodness by wallowing in prejudice and loathing like pigs do in mud, while those posts advocating tolerance and common sense are penned by heathens with no moral grounding.

If you believe these things, good luck to you. But it sounds suspiciously like stuff that would generally blow out of the orbit of the anal ring to me.

May your children all lip-synch to disco. And marry each other. And live happily ever after.

Don't you love Stickmans reponse."No one really cares about your opinion here," since this is a gay autocracy.Well Stickman,the evolutionery genetic reality is here,which has enabled our civilisation to excel way beyond our capacity as individuals,and the hetrosexual family unit is responsible for at least 90% of this reality,what right have the gays to overturn the formula which has brought us such success?You are a minority group,and like the fanatical Muslims,must learn you place in the reality of successful evolution.

Arjay.

1. Not only are you a bigot, but you apparently can't read. I said: "no one really cares to hear your opinion about the morality or otherwise of homosexuality, which has been with us forever and ever will be, whether you like it or not. That WAS NOT THE POINT OF THE ARTICLE." I never said no one cares to hear your opinion, just that you might try to keep ON TOPIC. The topic raised by the article was not "is homosexuality immoral?" though I am sure your eyes lit up when the chance came to poofter-bash, didn't it?

2. How could you possibly have construed that I am gay? My girlfriend and I have a 4 1/2 month old baby and we are very happy. Or is it just inconceivable to you that a straight guy could feel compassion and sympathy for the position of gay people?

3. If you have read anything else I have posted you will note that I am firmly in the non-believing, pro-evolution, Islamo-sceptic camp - much as it pains me to agree with you about anything.

4. Learn to spell or use spell checker so I don't have to wade through your tortured attempts at English

Vanilla - great post, thanks for that, a lovely counterpoint to the idiocy that followed.

Since every human being should be treated equally...

and since homosexuality is in most part innate...

And since it’s about sex between consenting adults (dogs and kids cannot consent or sign an important contract, so that slippery-slope argument has no ground)...

And since SSC (same sex couples), in countries where SSM (same sex marriage) is legal do accept the sanctity of marriage to the same extent that heterosexuals do...

And since religions won’t be forced to marry SSC; religious freedom will remain protected...

And since the numbers of homosexuals remain stable whether we do or don’t allow SSM...

there doesn’t seem to be a threat to religious freedom or society.

So I find it quite irrational to oppose SSM.