which case one parent is non-biological) or adopted (both parents are non-biological). Such situations are quite common in today's society; and the author(s) make no argument as to why a same-sex couple are any less capable of provding suitable parentage than a heterosexual couple udner similar circumstances. The author(s) also make the fatal mistake of claiming that marriage has always been between "a man and a woman". Even the briefest study of history will show that claim to be false; with polygamous and polyandrous marriages being far more common, and numerous instances of same-sex marriage occuring through various societies. Finally, the author(s) make their claim that homosexuality is a "choice"; which is ignorant in the extreme, and offensive. The only thing in their favour is that despite their backgrounds they didn't resort to using religion as an argument against same-sex marriage. However, all this article has achieved is highlighting the ignorance of those who argue against same-sex marriage, the paucity of their argument, and their tactic of resorting to misinformation and untruths to present their case. rob1966 : Children are a byproduct of marriage, but marriage is neither required nor mandated in order for children to be produced. So yes, marriage is not, and never has been, about children. The law that defines marriage in this country, the Marriage Act, puts no obligation on the couple getting married to have children. Indeed, the only mention of children in the Marriage Act is in respect of existing children (where they exist)