I tried really hard to get through Gallagher's arguments against same sex marriage, but she doesn't really have one. Corvino presents a lot of well thought out, logical, highly reasoned arguments in favor, and predicts the arguments that will be used against them. However, he overestimates his debating partner, who starts with personal attacks--intermingled with how unfair it is that teh gays always think it's just bigotry and hate when clearly IT IS SCIENCE--and then moves on to semantic nonsense (calling gay couples married is the same as referring to both dogs and cats as dogs) and plain irrationality.
My favorite example being that 1) same sex marriage will null the meaning of the word and screw up all marriages for everyone, while 2) not enough gay people even want to get married to make it worth society's time and effort to recognize them.
Her other primary "reason", and the one behind her founding of the National Organization for Marriage, is that marriage is about kids having a mother and father. The question of why she chooses to defend marriage against the one form of coupling that actually can't
result in accidental unwanted children, the sole purpose of NOM, rather than divorce or single parenthood, is totally ignored.
But what makes her most unbearable to me personally is that she begins her section by saying that she understands the other side's argument perfectly, ALL same sex marriage opponents do(!), but proponents like Corvino willfully insist on not understanding hers. Honestly, if she did understand what Corvino was saying, rather than falling back on her Catholic upbringing and the smiting God gave her when she was a bad, bad girl and had sex before she was married, she'd shut up already. Or at least write something that relates to the issue, rather than stringing a lot of big words together in an attempt to confuse people and take up space.
I probably would have rated this book higher if I'd resisted the temptation to give Gallagher the benefit of the doubt.