Why I Oppose Gay Marriage

People ask me how I plan to vote in the upcoming plebiscite on gay marriage. I tell them “no” and they demand an explanation. This is strange since it was only last week they were telling me that even asking my opinion was destructive to the mental well-being of the LGBT community. But now that we are finally getting the chance to have our say apparently I must defend the default position.

I’m voting no because there is no reason to vote yes. Gay marriage as a social institution makes absolutely zero sense. The only argument in favour of gay marriage is “if you vote no you hate gay people.” The rhetoric reflects this, talk of “inevitability” and “equality” set the stage for gay marriage as the default position, but gay marriage is not the default position, traditional marriage is. The onus is on the LGBT lobby for change and their only argument is “you’re a bigot.”

I don’t hate anyone but I do care about the future of this country, and the only future for this country comes from heterosexual couples getting married and having kids. That’s not just what marriage is for, that’s what society is for.

I’m not married and never will be, but I don’t elevate my bachelorhood to the same status as a father of four. I’m shirking my duty, it’s not my biggest crime but it is exactly what I am doing. My penance for this is to recognize that I am less relevant than those men who have families and do their duty, to take a back seat when it comes to addressing my needs, to take the smaller slice when the pie is not big enough for everyone.

Economically speaking this is more than a simple opinion, it is a well-reasoned conclusion based on evidence. Conservative politicians often say that the foundation of a good society is the family unit, but this misses the far more profound realization that the whole purpose of society to begin with is the family unit. Remove the family unit from consideration and the point to society is nihilistic hedonism, which is to say no point at all and doomed to die.

Men work harder than they need to comfortably sustain themselves to attract women and support families. We accept the payment of taxes because it provides schools and infrastructure to educate and care for children, to provide police and military to protect those children until they are old enough to protect themselves and others.

Without heterosexual families there is little point to any of it, no matter what we build, or discover, or create it will last only as long as we do. When we die all we leave behind will be decay and rot, unappreciated and pointless. Without children to do better than us there is no point in doing much at all.

Even gays should be able to recognize this simple truth without feeling slighted or shunned. They are not the point because they do not breed. Their existence ends with them, with no legacy except that provided by heterosexuals. Gay men live on only as they are remembered by the children of heterosexuals.

The artist Michelangelo is thought to have been homosexual, he certainly had no children of his own, so his work lives on through the children of others. The roof of the Sistine Chapel is important because of heterosexual unions, and Michelangelo achieves his place in history because married men and women carried on the traditions of Catholicism and fostered future generations that could appreciate his masterpiece.

We are not all destined to be great artists of course, but gay people play their own roles each in their own small ways. The restaurant manager, the shop assistant, even (if you’ll forgive the stereotype) the hairdressers, everyone from the most degenerate queen to the most chaste monk is completely reliant on heterosexual unions to produce healthy heterosexual children that can grow up and produce healthy heterosexual children of their own.

It is not just a father’s purpose to care for his own family; it is everyone’s purpose to care for all families.

This is not a question of rights. There is no natural right to marriage and no rights are being abridged by banning gay marriage. Straight couples are not entitled to marry because it is their right, they are encouraged to marry because marriage is for the good of society and the production of a healthy next generation to replace the current generation.

The LGBT lobby is fond of criticizing the idea of traditional marriage as anything but traditional. That monogamous marriage with the possibility of divorce is relatively new. In this they are correct, the institution of marriage has adapted and evolved over time. Indeed what we call today “Christian marriage” is closer to the pre-Christian Jewish and pagan traditions with a few modern updates, Christ himself never married, nor is there any record of his disciples marrying.

But recognizing that marriage has changed does not make the case for endless and irrational change just for the sake of it. Each time marriage has changed it has been done so on the reasoning that the updated form of marriage would improve outcomes for children and therefore for society as a whole.

Indeed in the last few decades many mistakes have been made in this regard. No-fault divorce may have solved the immediate problem of a backlog of failed marriages, but it has created a society where families are broken up all too easily and the risks for men of entering into marriage are now quite high.

So if any changes need to be made to marriage it is the reassertion of the principle that the purpose of marriage is not the emotional affirmation of the husband and wife, but for the purpose of building stronger families.

Gay marriage not only does not satisfy this condition, but it continues the same ideological missteps that have increased misery and led to worse outcomes for society as a whole. Which is to say that while two men standing in a park changing rings may have no effect on society whatsoever, two thousand men standing in that park leads to fewer men offering rings to women. We don’t need men to marry men, we do need men to marry women.

This argument will of course have little impact on LGBT activists, who long ago gave up on anything beyond the promotion of degeneracy disguised as liberation of the oppressed. But for everyone else it should be recognized that these people do not even believe in society and have no interest in seeing it continue, let alone prosper.

LGBT advocacy today is a career choice. The people pushing for gay marriage, many of whom are heterosexual, are paid to do so. The steady decline of society and the destruction of any meaningful legacy is their employment. That future generations will look back on a yes vote to the gay marriage plebiscite as the point when Australian society began its irrevocable decline and that the generation that did it will be seen as short-sighted and foolish does not mean anything to them.

Nor indeed will it satisfy them. When you are employed as a lobbyist for degeneracy then no level of degeneracy will ever be enough. Indeed despite their protestations a yes vote is not in their interests at all. They will need to begin again with some new campaign for some marginalized group summoned from the dregs of society and the overcrowded mental wards as they redefine crime as mental illness and mental illness as lifestyle choice.

The New York Times publishes op-ed in defence of paedophiles. The Daily Mail published fluff pieces of modern polygamists. The sterilization of children who are taught that they may choose their gender, with no concept of what that means, goes uncontested by paediatricians who should know better.

The same people calling for gay marriage call for a religious tax that would see Christianity wiped out in Australia.

They will have no choice after gay marriage except to start pushing for these sorts of things. To not do so would mean unemployment, to push for them means another decade or so getting paid to make everyone feel guilty for being normal. The steady destruction of civilization means nothing more to them than a modest salary at an office in North Melbourne.

If the plebiscite returns a yes vote and gay marriage is instituted, the first speeches given by these sorts of people, again many of whom are not themselves gay, will be “today was a great step forward, but there is a long way yet to go,” but what they intend as our destination is a question they either won’t or can’t answer no matter how hard they are pressed.

Normal heterosexual people should not feel guilty for being so, far from it. They should feel proud that they have done their part. The stay-at-home mums, the hard working dads, the babysitting grandma, and the cheque writing grandpa should be seen as special because they are special. Everyone else should recognize their specialness, because without them there is no future for any of us.

And the recognition of that specialness is called marriage, which should fundamentally and totally reflect that principle and only that principle. Everything else is just noise.

  • Deplorable Steve

    BrillIant article.

  • Anirtak76

    Great stuff… very well presented and sensible article on a difficult topic.

  • concern00

    Wow. As a father I am humbled by this.

    • Cottontail

      Great article. Just one wee detail I’d like to discuss briefly😊 Jesus’s apostle Peter had a mother in law. You don’t ‘inherit’ those unless you’re married.
      Anyway, he eventually followed his Master, sacrificing all.
      Thanks, you’ve made a wonderful contribution.👍

  • Rachel Motes

    Thank you for saying what i have been trying to find a way to politely say for many years. I totally agree with you here, that the concept of marriage should be to further the strength of the family, equally am with
    you in the idea that gender reassignment in kids should wait till their at least 18 and can truly think for themselves should also be a world wide law, not that i agree with the reassignment, but whatevs on that.

  • Piret

    Wow! Thank you – so reasoned, logical and TRUE!

  • Sam, I think maybe you should consider getting married. Who knows you may make an excellent father. At the very least, you seem to understand what fatherhood is for.

    • Gerald Richards

      I suppose he might find someone who has the same 1950s outlook. But a woman of this 21st century would see him for what he is.

    • Natalie Tyler

      I wonder why he isn’t. I would have thought, given his belief that people who don’t procreate aren’t the point, he would be more interested in fulfilling the purpose of man. Instead he wants to put down people who are ‘shirking their duty’ while at the same time admitting that he himself is doing exactly that.

  • Gill

    “I’m voting no because there is no reason to vote yes.” Here are just 2 reasons to consider, but there are plenty more.

    Gay marriage is directly linked to a drop in suicide rates. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39043149

    Gay marriage boosts the economy. http://uk.businessinsider.com/ubs-how-same-sex-marriage-boosts-economic-trend-growth-2015-7?r=US&IR=T

    “while two men standing in a park changing rings may have no effect on society whatsoever, two thousand men standing in that park leads to fewer men offering rings to women.” Gay men don’t need to ‘offer rings’ to women. And forcing gay men into straight marriages doesn’t exactly make for happy family units.

    I don’t understand your worries about your society degenerating, or Christians being ‘wiped out’. There’s absolutely no basis for those fears. Gay people aren’t going to ‘wipe out’ straight people. Non-Christians aren’t going to ‘wipe out’ Christians. And the 2 groups aren’t mutually exclusive. In other words, there are lots of gay Christians, many of whom do an amazing job of bringing up children.

    I hope this video will help you see this from a different perspective. If not, maybe some other voters will reconsider. I fear for a society that cannot learn to accept difference. It really is going to be okay!

    https://youtu.be/2JBiLnY8XTg

    Also, if these 2 men aren’t the very best of what the word ‘father’ means, then I don’t think the words means what I thought it did.

  • Daniel Panek

    I see it differently; it’s not a big deal, it helps others … as Christians that’s what we’re supposed to do right? .. http://rkidd.tumblr.com/post/46492412098/gay-marriage

  • Gerald Richards

    Interesting article, so much of it appearing to cling to the
    past. “People don’t resist change, they resist being changed.” Peter Senge.

    1.
    “I
    don’t hate anyone but I do care about the future of this country, and the only
    future for this country comes from heterosexual couples getting married and
    having kids. That’s not just what marriage is for, that’s what society is for.”

    Your definition of marriage is very limited, probably based on the fact
    you are not married. A good marriage is far from just having children to ensure
    the future. It is based on many things such as love, respect and allowing each
    to pursue their interests and not be confined to the traditional roles. With my
    wife I had no children, but she taught me how to love others without fear which
    I can pass on to my step-children, my nieces and nephews and others. Don’t tell
    me that that marriage will not impact the future.

    2.
    “Economically
    speaking this is more than a simple opinion, it is a well-reasoned conclusion
    based on evidence. Conservative politicians often say that the foundation of a
    good society is the family unit, but this misses the far more profound
    realization that the whole purpose of society to begin with is the family unit.
    Remove the family unit from consideration and the point to society is
    nihilistic hedonism, which is to say no point at all and doomed to die.”

    Like other animals, the function is to pass on the species. One does not need
    to be married to achieve this. It can help.

    Your “family unit” is a narrow definition to suit
    your purpose. Are you saying two people living together with children are not a
    family? One of the definitions of “family” is “A group of people
    living as one household, including parents and their children, boarders, etc.
    (Source OED). My parents are both deceased; are you saying my brothers and
    partners and their children are not my “family”? People without
    children adopt. Are you saying they are not a family?

    3.
    “Men work
    harder than they need to comfortably sustain themselves to attract women and
    support families.”

    What century do you live in?

    4.
    “We accept
    the payment of taxes because it provides schools and infrastructure to educate
    and care for children, to provide police and military to protect those children
    until they are old enough to protect themselves and others.”

    Homosexuals also do this.

    5.
    “It is
    not just a father’s purpose to care for his own family; it is everyone’s
    purpose to care for all families.”

    So a married couple, heterosexual or homosexual are included? And if a
    couple have 10 children it is the purpose of any homosexual, married or not to
    care for these children? If that be the case, you want to exclude and/or
    include when it suits you.

    6.
    “But
    recognizing that marriage has changed does not make the case for endless and
    irrational change just for the sake of it. Each time marriage has changed it
    has been done so on the reasoning that the updated form of marriage would
    improve outcomes for children and therefore for society as a whole.”

    What about the havoc it has reaped on women? They’ve had to fight for
    recognition and not seen as an appendage to the male. No doubt when they wanted
    a say it was seen as “irrational”. Many opposed “no fault” divorce as
    protecting the sanctity of marriage. Obviously a change for changes sake.

    7.
    “Indeed in
    the last few decades many mistakes have been made in this regard. No-fault
    divorce may have solved the immediate problem of a backlog of failed marriages,
    but it has created a society where families are broken up all too easily and
    the risks for men of entering into marriage are now quite high.”

    Wow! So the risks are only for men to take? No mention of women, or don’t they
    count? If we are thinking of the children, is it better for them to remain in a
    situation where the parents are abusive to one another?

    8.
    “So if any
    changes need to be made to marriage it is the reassertion of the principle that
    the purpose of marriage is not the emotional affirmation of the husband and
    wife, but for the purpose of building stronger families.”

    This is the most naïve statement I’ve read in a long time. How the hell do you
    build strong families without ‘the emotional affirmation of the husband and
    wife’? People enter into marriage through emotion. They stay in marriage and
    have children through emotion. People know one another for a couple of years or
    so then decide to get married and promise themselves to one another for the
    next 50 years or so. Hello, that’s driven by emotion. The human animal is
    driven by emotion.

    9.
    “This
    argument will of course have little impact on LGBT activists, who long ago gave
    up on anything beyond the promotion of degeneracy disguised as liberation of
    the oppressed. But for everyone else it should be recognized that these people
    do not even believe in society and have no interest in seeing it continue, let
    alone prosper.”

    Where’s your proof of society degenerating other than your emotional outburst?
    You are making unfounded claims. Homosexuals care just as much about society as
    anyone else. You have an opinion then try to belittle others. Gays will not
    stop the marriages between a man and a woman. The two groups aren’t mutually
    exclusive.

    10.
    “LGBT
    advocacy today is a career choice. The people pushing for gay marriage, many of
    whom are heterosexual, are paid to do so.”

    What errant nonsense. It is an emotional outburst. I will vote for “Yes” in this
    unnecessary plebiscite. Oh! And I’m not being paid to advocate such rights.

    11.
    “Nor
    indeed will it satisfy them. When you are employed as a lobbyist for degeneracy
    then no level of degeneracy will ever be enough. Indeed despite their
    protestations a yes vote is not in their interests at all. They will need to
    begin again with some new campaign for some marginalized group summoned from
    the dregs of society and the overcrowded mental wards as they redefine crime as
    mental illness and mental illness as lifestyle choice.”

    I think you’ve lost it here. For someone who starts off saying he doesn’t hate anyone
    then ranting on about the degeneracy of a certain group and their supporters,
    dregs and mental institutions must come pretty close

    12.
    “They will
    have no choice after gay marriage except to start pushing for these sorts of
    things. To not do so would mean unemployment, to push for them means another
    decade or so getting paid to make everyone feel guilty for being normal. The
    steady destruction of civilization means nothing more to them than a modest
    salary at an office in North Melbourne.”

    Now you’re totally off the rails. A spurious meaningless rant.

    13. “Normal heterosexual people should not feel
    guilty for being so, far from it. They should feel proud that they have done
    their part. The stay-at-home mums, the hard working dads, the babysitting
    grandma, and the cheque writing grandpa should be seen as special because they
    are special.”

    No one is attacking the right of heterosexuals to marry and raise children and
    all those you have mentioned above are special.

    This article, written by Sam Oldfield,
    is by someone who has a very romantic view of what marriage is. He is an
    observer, not a player. He mistakenly believes that the purpose of marriage is
    to have children and ignores the emotions of the parents. He defines “family” in
    a very narrow context and his definition is very much of the 1950’s. Old
    attitudes don’t sit well with the modern man and woman.

  • Andy Hughes

    His point that marriage should only be for breeders is invalidated simply the fact heterosexual couples where at least one or both are infertile are allowed to be married. It’s not about if you can breed its a statement of your love and dedication to your partner.

  • Sadly,
    this article is written by me.. before I got to closely know and
    understand some gay people and their side of the story, that is. I think
    they would have a far better chance of getting it through if they just
    dropped the word “Marriage” and instead
    used “Matrimony”. They mean the same legally. Much of the resistance
    from the conservative side comes from objection to use of the particular
    word, not objection to the idea of same sex unions. Perhaps if we cared a little more about the health of heterosexual unions, then homosexual ones will take care of themselves.

    • Gerald Richards

      I’m confused. Are you saying you have written the article under the pseudonym of Sam Oldfield?

  • Andy Leonard

    “They are not the point because they do not breed. Their existence ends with them, with no legacy except that provided by heterosexuals. Gay men live on only as they are remembered by the children of heterosexuals.”

    Some of us do breed. Myself and my partner have a child and there are never unwanted pregnancies with LGBT families, it’s always very much planned. Theses children, on average, do slightly better than other children, when compared academically. The fact that people like you are being asked to validate or invalidate their family unit is utterly ridiculous.

    Whilst you think that banging on about ‘stay at home mums’ and ‘hard working dads’ maybe furthering society in your view, all you’re doing is fostering your own hatred and resentment of families like our one because they don’t fit your own narrow mould.

    A bond cementing the relationship of the parents in families like ours will not change your any other relationship but ours.

    You’re right, many people are calling on churches to be taxed. When many senior Catholic leaders are calling for confessional privacy on priests being able to protect paedophiles, ask yourself who has a better vision for the lives of children; a) the gay couple who’ve spent their life savings on IVF and surrogacy (which isn’t funded by Medicare for same sex couples, as it is with straight couples) to create their family? Or b) Church leaders representing a tax haven who are lobbying for the protection of paedophiles?

    • Möwe

      “Theses (sic) children, on average, do slightly better than other children, when compared academically.”

      Dubious. But see how the materialist argument is being used here. It’s all about what you have and what you own. Whoever dies with he most toys wins. Some worldview. Get better results in school? Who gives a stuff, if you’re the world’s smartest jerk?

      Meanwhile, the poor kid raised by a same-sex couple has to grow up thinking ‘where’s my mum?’, and simultaneously doing everything to please his two dads and go along with the illusion that it’s all normal.

      Moreover, a same-sex couple can’t have a child without becoming a threesome with a member of the opposite sex. Pretending that a same-sex couple can have its own child is just a lie. Is the ‘yes’ side the side of the liars? If so, why would I vote for them?

      You have been played expertly by the same-sex marriage activists. You aren’t going to change your mind. You aren’t even going to consider any of what I say, because in your mind I’m a bigot. They made you think that way. It only took a few decades of effort. They have played you like an accordion, and getting a nice tune out of you.

      Vote No!

      • Andy Leonard

        Möwe, with all due respect, not that I have any for you, to be honest, you are right, I do think you’re a bigot. Anyone reading would also think the same.

        Luckily I don’t need your validation of our family to get by.

        Our child will not grow up wondering where his mum is, he has two loving dads and a very special auntie who carried him.

        If you have that view, you may as well say that any family with a single parent will have the same problem, with the child always thinking where his other parent is.

        Luckily for our family, we’re all happy enough without your vile judgement.

        Regards *

        *actually, no regards; I don’t have any respect for those who wish to push their view onto the lives of others when it has no bearing on their own lives whatsoever.

        VOTE YES!

  • Ed

    How about we stop breeding and the last person turns off the lights? Why are we so desperate to keep an utterly useless species going? Nobody misses the dinosaurs either. You think we will be missed by the roaches for centuries to come once the last person has turned off the light? Most important question is who is going to like the last post on facebook before it collapses as there are no people anymore to keep it online?

    • Penet

      Sounds like a great end to a Sci Fi movie…

  • J R Thomas Morrison

    This is blantalty stupid and ridiculous. So, the author is therefore not ok with someone who is sterile from getting married? Or two people who two people who found love later in life and are now not able to have children?
    Marriage is not just for people who can procreate. Procreation can and is done outside of marriage. To say that marriage is only for those can procreate and nothing else is absurd.
    And to call homosexuals degenerate is absurd and straight out of the “100-steps-on-how-to-be-a-fascist textbook. What do does the author mean by degenerate? Are they an “an immoral or corrupt person” because they are attracted to someone of the same sex? What makes their inability to feel attraction to someone of the opposite sex corrupt/immoral?
    The author’s argument not only devalues the emotion of love and affection but devalues the love and affection that single parents have for their children, or that of the two people who can’t have children.

  • Michael Slama

    This is the biggest pile of shit ive read lately.

    Theres plenty of kids born who have become orphaned or cast off by their biological’s…more than enough for gay couples to adopt and raise if they want to.

    Furthermore the earth is well bloody overpopulated at the moment.

    You act as if enabling gay marriage is going to cause birthrates to halt and derail civilization. How ignorant.

    Furthermore it is not just social but also legal. A de facto couple is not granted the same rights legally as a married couple. I should know, im in a (heterosexual) de facto relationship.

    Essentially what youre doing amounts to telling society yourw ok with putting people in a different caste system and only hetero marriages should have legal rights.

    Get a clue.

  • Penet

    Thank for your article, and putting the emotional rhetoric of the SSM lobby in proper context, and pointing out how many non homosexuals are working for same sex marriage, something that makes no sense unless money is behind it. I will be sharing this article for the “love is love” people I know who have completely fallen for this pointless slogan, and they are not homosexual. So they can hear your point of view too. Well done thank you again.

  • Jules Gutierrez

    The children/procreation argument here is a lame red herring. This plebiscite has nothing to do with who should/shouldn’t/can/can’t have children.

    Does the author truly believe birth rates will fall if gay couples are allowed to marry?

    Does he truly believe all these folks will simply move on into hetero relationships, that gay men will then give up and “offer rings to women” and procreate with a no vote?

    Such a poor argument.

  • Phu Pham

    I respect that people would have their own opinions about this issue. However, we are busy talking about what wrong with same-sex marriage and not carefully look at the benefits of it. Have you ever wondered if you vote no, what does that mean for the gay, lesbian community? A majority of the gay community is still in the closet, and your big “NO” vote would push them even further in the dark. They would not just live by themselves for the rest of their lives. They would get married, but not to their same-sex partner because it is not legal. So they would marry your straight-son, your straight daughter. And you could already understand where this is going. By voting No, you are silencing the voice of not just the LGBTQ community, you are creating other troubles for the society, you push them to suicide threat, you put them into fake relationships with straight partner, you put them into. This issue would not stop when you vote No, this issue would continue as the LGBTQ community will go on campaigning for their rights. Instead of getting it done with and move on, your “No” vote would lead to a waste of another $120million in the future vote, because this matter would simply not go away, regardless of how many times you vote No, this issue would not disappear.

    • Möwe

      No, a ‘No’ vote would not do what you said. If evidence from the Left’s reaction to Trump and Brexit is an indication (it is), then a No vote will be followed by epic whining. They will not shut up about it. Only now they’ll have ‘proof’ that ‘the majority of Australians are homophobes’ or whatever. They’ll probaby put on double the cops at the next Mardi Gras and not shut up about ‘how sad it is that this is thought to be needed’. These guys love talking about being victims so much they will probably actually like a ‘No’ vote!

      Gay marriage is a bad idea. It was concocted by creepy nihilist-atheist neo-Marxist theorists in universities with big plans for the West, whom you and most proponents of SSM know next to nothing about. Those plans are well underway in all of the West, and are not going to stop if there is a ‘yes’ vote. This is why you don’t see much call for gay marriage outside the West. SSM’s main aim is to further remove the moral authority of the church. Its most egregious immediate effect will be that surrogacy will increase in order to continue the illusion that a gay couple is ‘equal’ to a man-woman couple.

      Vote ‘No’ for all the reasons given in the article, and also because this is about the only time they are ever going to let us ordinary people have our say on social matters. Use it to put the brakes on and slow down all this change! Let’s pause and take a breath, and think about it.

      For every other, non-SSM social matter, they (i.e. those bringing about the changes — academics, politicians, activists etc.) will keep on doing what they have been doing. If you are really worried, you can rest assured that gay people will continue to do what they are doing right now.

      You mentioned rights. Well, does a ‘married’ gay couple have a ‘right’ to take a child away from its mother in order to ‘be a real family’? Why give the gay couple a right only to take the right to his own mother away from the child? Sounds like the kid gets a raw deal. So don’t talk to me about ‘rights’. The child’s ‘right’ to his own mother at least comes from the natural reality that he has a mother. Where does a gay couple’s ‘right’ to marry come from? University theorists, is the answer to that one.

      As for your comment about spending $120 million and it being a ‘waste’. I am concerned about the ABC eating up a billion a year to produce bias and second-rate product. I’m concerned about a national debt creeping up toward a trillion due to far too much government spending. There’s plenty of waste which the Left never mentions because they benefit from it. ‘Left’ means ‘more government’, after all.

  • Natalie Tyler

    One thing I don’t understand – how will allowing homosexual people to get married somehow limit the amount of heterosexual people getting married and having children? If a homosexual person is unable to marry their same-sex partner, they’re not then going to marry an opposite-sex partner instead and have children. So the number of straight people getting married and having children won’t change.

    Another thing – you admit that you are shirking your duty by not being married and raising a family. Why are you not stepping up to the plate to perform the duty that is the purpose of a man? If gay people are in the wrong for shirking this same duty, then aren’t you just as guilty of them? You say it’s not your greatest crime, but when you talk of homosexual people shirking this duty, then it certainly sounds like you’re treating it as their greatest crime.

    And you ought to be held accountable even more than homosexual people. If a gay person married a person of the opposite sex, the relationship is unlikely to be as happy and loving as is necessary to raise healthy children. As a straight man who has solid views on the importance of marriage, children and religion, wouldn’t you be more in a position to be in a healthy relationship with a woman and raise well-balanced children?

  • John Gallagher

    Silly Johnny Speight (not the comedy writer), you are not arguing against same sex marriage, you are arguing against the evolution of human relationships and sexuality. Heterosexuality is a more primitive expression of human affection based more on survival than self actualisation and was, in a less enlightened time, an essential social contract for the propagation of the species. Now, as some people become more enlightened, this basic “family unit” is less relevant and alternative “family units” based on the needs and wants of non-heterosexual people are being formed, and these people want the legal and social recognition of their relationships that heterosexual people already have. What is your problem?

  • John Gallagher

    The world is overpopulated, we need fewer children, but sadly the only people breeding are the uneducated with double digit IQs.

  • Alyson N

    So, I am confused. I am not married, I am hetro sexual, and I do not have children. So are you saying I am no use to be alive? (No comment from the women haters thankyou)

  • Leslie

    What I love the most about this article is that is still so close minded I’m a gay man that is about to have a child with a lesbian friend of mine and we will be amazing parents. We don’t want to get married. However family comes in many forms, gays are getting married without having children, gays are having children without being married and their children are growing up just fine even straight and “normal” can you believe it? The Netherlands has had SSM for 17 years and its business as usual; Christians still exist, children are great, nobody’s getting married to their dog or brother everything is as usual because SSM won’t affect anyone other than those entering into said marriage. Because as I said the gays will still be having kids and being “fathers” regardless. Peace.