[Chummy]

"The exact same can be said of heterosexual acts performed by anyone incapable of producing children or willfully preventing conception. Why should they get the perks of marriage as a reward for sterile and selfish sexual acts?"

What is the primary function of marriage? Is it not to form the foundation of a family, the very foundation of our society?

You extracted out-of-context a portion of what I've been writing on this subject, trying to offer a view that is based on science, ie, absent for the moment a Biblical take on the subject. There is nothing that a homosexual act contributes to the society, and there is therefore no basis for that society to recognize or encourage further homosexual acts, be they within or extramarital in setting.

[Stone Mountain]

I've been writing on this subject, trying to offer a view that is based on science, ie, absent for the moment a Biblical take on the subject. There is nothing that a homosexual act contributes to the society, and there is therefore no basis for that society to recognize or encourage further homosexual acts, be they within or extramarital in setting.

The trouble with this view is that if homosexual families are allowed to adopt, then they can contribute to society just as much as straight families who adopt can. The homosexual act doesn't contribute to society, but neither does the heterosexual act. Once you start ascribing non-sexual behaviors with these acts, you run into trouble (from a debate perspective) because most non-sexual acts are not associated solely with one sexual preference.

[RightWhale]

What is the primary function of marriage?

A very fine question. Most excellent. Is it not to maintain continuity in the family estate?