I find this article confusing, because, while the author claims to be a liberal democrat, the organization for which he works is about as right as they come. It's fine by me if he's on the right, but why pretend otherwise.
Also, I would like to see some more data on why he feels marriage is primarily a legal agreement for reproduction. That may have been the case when the institution was first proposed, but that hardly seems the case now. Most people I know see marriage as a way to concretize their relationship in the eyes of those they love--regardless of whether they plan on having children some day.
Not to mention, the idea of marriage in this context seems to ignore the high divorce rate in this country. If marriages are entered into "for the children" why are people then divorcing since, presumably, they realise this is harmful to these same children?
I find it hard to buy an argument that seeks to take down homosexual marriage when it has so many questionable claims regarding heterosexual marriage in the first place.
