The idea of 'so called' homosexual marriage is objectionable on a couple of grounds:
1/ the state has no business in the private relationships people enter into;
the state has instituted marriage for the nurture and protection of children,
and the provision of means for their upbringing. In these terms, the benefits
of marriage recognise that one person in the couple, usually the mother,
suffers financial disadvantage through her child-rearing efforts. Thus the
financial advantage afforded in superannuation and other formal recognition
of the relationship.
2/ homosexual relationships do not reflect a true sexual union, but a
perverted employment of sexual organs in a non-sexual means. It is non-sexual
because it cannot produce offspring. The non-production of offspring goes to
the demise of the state. The state has no interest in supporting activity
that does not promote the longevity of the state for the general benefit it
affords to its people. Homosexual 'marriage' is thus a piece of socially
unproductive decoration in which the state has no interest.