doc:
I'm a little disappointed you seized upon the word 'defect' without reading the rest of my post, as I think it actually deals with pretty much all of your other arguments.
"they all refer to each other as "partner" not husband or wife."
Firstly, believe it or not, this does not just apply to homosexual couples. It's becoming increasingly the case among younger heterosexual couples too. For instance, I was working as a temp in an office for a few weeks just recently - literally every single person I came into conversation with referred to their other halves as 'partners'. Even the ones wearing wedding rings. And no, none of them knew that I'm gay so they weren't trying to 'appease' me in some weird way.
"Fot that reason alone the existing situation should remain, ie, marriage is between a man and a woman, old fashioned but, in my eyes morally sound. "
You have not bothered to respond to my argument that the definition of marriage has changed over time substantially. The reason it has always involved man + woman is that until around the mid-C20, it simply wasn't imagined that relationships could occur among anyone but a man and a woman. We now know this assumption to be false, and historically the definition marriage has changed with circumstances - it lost the link to property, for instance, and is also losing its religious connotations in W. Europe. Why shouldn't in change further in accordance with what we know about human relationships?
"Well Kosmos, that's pretty obvious as homosexuality ony affects men. "
I hope this was a joke, because it makes you look pretty stupid if it wasn't.