Just give some information. It's also a controversial topic in Hong Kong, but the focus is different. While westerners tend to talk about this issue in the eye of religion, Chinese concerns its damage to social ethics (here, I mean the traditional family structure), but I think the results are similar: 50% for and 50% against. 

Anyway, I don't see there's any good reason to object gay marriage. We should ethically and socially support it.  

1.The bigger damage to family ethic is the right to divorce, but it seems that no country proposed a law to ban divorce.  Why gay marriage?

2.  It's said that gay men involved many sex partners. Gay marriage provides them with legally binding committment and it may help our society fight for AIDS.  

A few random observations from a gay man who was not in favour of gay marriage and adoption, but now is:

1) If the purpose of marriage is procreation should women who are incapable of bearing children (e.g. they have passed child bearing age or have had a hysterectomy) or men incapable of inseminating women (for whatever reason) be banned from marrying?

2) If a child needs parents of both sexes to be around to grow up to be balanced, should widows and widowers with children be forced to remarry?

3) Heterosexuality is the inability to form a meaningful relationship with a person of the same sex. (Don’t know who said that first.)

4) Heterosexuality is not normal, just common.(Don’t know who said that first.)

5) These days no-one wants to get married except gays. (Don’t know who said that first.)

6) The reason I was against gay marriage was that it seemed to be aping straight behaviour.  I felt marriage (and even more adoption) was not in keeping with what I perceived as a gay lifestyle. I now feel differently. People who make a public commitment to each other should have the same tax breaks as straight married couples. Even more important is the question of hospital visiting rights and similar matters. How devastating it must be for two people to be in love and for one to be seriously ill or dying and be deprived of the company of the other by relatives who disapprove of the relationship.

Yes,  in a purerly biological point of view it is against the "laws of nature" because same sex couple can't reproduce.

But in the society point of view I think that heterosexual and homosexual human beings deserve to have the same rights. No discrimination.

So I say yes to gay marriages. And I think that people that are against it are narrow minded hypocriets.

You may quote me on that.

Anonymous wrote:

Re: All mammal populations in the wild have a homosexual population. Where is your source?? What is being observed in other mammals is not sexually driven (directly) homosexuality, but a form of dominance among members of a group. It is a many times siimply a show of power, of the right to breed with the females of their choice. This is quite obvious in our most easily observed mammal, the dog.

Homosexuality in other mammals may be interpreted by observers as "a form of dominance among members of a group"; but that may be because observers tend to interpret the behaviour of social animals in terms of dominance.

Moreover, we might have some difficulty in applying the same interpretation to non-social mammals.

MrP