Sorry for not coming back. Frankly, since I don't hang out on the off topic boards I forgot that I started this thread.
First, the danger to marriage in general is that when a definition includes everything than it suddenly means nothing.
Second the reason you hear most about childrearing is because, frankly, most people who want to preserve the definition of marriage that has been observed for a couple thousand years don't care about anyone's sex life but their own. Speaking for me personally, I could care less about homosexuality but I realize how precious each child is.
Everyone who has ever had a mama and a daddy know that women and men parent in a vastly different manner. Both of these parenting styles are important in the development of a child.
As for the case of abuse from heterosexual couples, I will admit that marriage is already fouled up. There are abusers who should not have access to children. Also the divorce rate isn't what it should be. But the fact that marriage is already broken isn't an excuse to try social experiments.
I have to say that I wonder why people want to fight for something they don't want to participate in. If someone is desperate to marry, then they probably would have taken the opportunity to marry when it was offered. Yet only there was only about 1 in 4 same-sex couples married in California when given the opportunity to. In Connecticut civil unions, which offer the same benefits as marriage except for the name, have been legal for years. Yet only 1 in 5 of same sex couples have chosen a civil union.
So if it isn't about sex and it isn't about benefits (if it was about benefits more people would have signed up), then I wonder what it is about?
Elisabeth
