How does the marriage of a man and a woman deny such a person's dignity or respect?It does not.

Marriage law is for marriage and not for some nonmarital alternative that happens to be limited by the lack of either a bride or a groom.

The SSM campaign routinely emphasizes gay identity politics as decisive. And that typically entails an emphasis on samesex sexual attraction, samesex sexual romance, and samesex sexual behavior.None of that serves respect human dignity. Quite the contrary.

The choice to form a nonmarital alternative relationship is a liberty exercise and not a right denied. Making bad choices is not forbidden by marriage law.

Recasting marriage is at issue here. The SSM side seeks to replace the marriage idea with a poor substitute idea. Renaming that lousy idea (the SSM idea) "marriage" by force of arbitrary law would be unjust and a blatant disregard for respect of human dignity. It would demote the core meaning of marriage down from its preferential status. It would drop the marriage idea to a barely tolerative status. Why?To elevate the gay identity group and to entrench the supremacy of gay identity politics over and above all other considerations.

That would be a deep harm to society.

The bride-groom requirement does not obstruct equal treatment of individuals under the law.

You probably mean to demand a false equivalence between the marriage (the union of husband and wife) and a gaycentric subset of nonmarriage.

That would be favoritism of the gay identity group rather than equality of individuals.

The marriage law does not force people to marry. It does not force people to lie.

Perhaps you'd acknowledge that your rhetoric was excessive.

Homosexual adults (5% of aduts) 0.9 million
Couples 33,714
Individuals (33,714) x 2 = 67,428

Percentage of adult homosexual population in homosexual twosomes?

Adult homosexual population 900,000
Individuals 67,428
Percentage in twosomes = 7%

About 93% of the adult homosexual population are NOT in homosexual twosomes.

By contrast, 78% of the nonhomosexual population are in twosomes.

Only a tiny percentage of the adult homosexual population pairs-up (in the homosexualized sense intended by the census) and a verytiny percentage of that tiny subgroup self-describes as same-sex "married".

SSM would be a ver inefficient vehicle for deliering government benefts to the adult homosexual population.

Or in fact is this survey not the whole story?

There is no real risk to 'rest of society' as this has been shown in country after country that has legalised ssm.

As someone else said above, one can,t really decide policy just on the notion of prevalence, that would be perverse.

Gays are a tiny fraction of the population, perhaps 1.7% overall. Gays who consider themselves to be "married" are a small fraction of that already tiny fraction.

The notion of uprooting and severing the deep connection between marriage and procreation, to be done at the risk of real harm to the rest of society and only to placate this fraction-of-a-fraction, is ludicrous. Why should we do it?

Your use of the study is either ignorant or deliberately dishonest.

In any event, everyone has the right to enter into private civil contracts. A tiny fraction of the population doesn’t have the right to de-gender the institution of marriage for the 99% without their consent. De-gendering marriage would be especially detrimental to women and children.

Does the richest 1% of the population have the right to abolish progressive taxation to preserve their sense of dignity?

You'll understand better this November.