Marriage is a tradition, a long standing tradition at that. Part of this tradition is a special bond between man and women which is a part of human nature. The two sexes evolved on earth so humans could populate, it's a natural occurrence of the species of earth. Thus marriage between male and female should stay as a separate definition.

Now, you are going to say; What about the man and women who doesn't want children, they aren't following nature's path. I say; Just because they decided not to propagate doesn't mean they are not following nature's path, they are bonding as male and female and that is part of nature. Besides they might change there mind or have an unexpected pregnancy and decide not to have an abortion.

That being said, I see no problem with same sex bonding. I like Tom, see no reason for law to interfere other than to levy equal benefits.

Bonding of same sex humans should have the same rights as opposite sex humans. Is it so unjust to define the difference? Which brings us back to; What is in a name?

SteveS