But homosexuality IS the norm. Some level of homosexual activity is a normal part of life for a large number of mammalian (and other) species, including most of our simian relatives. The survival of the species does not require EVERY member of the species to produce offspring through contact with another member of the opposite sex -- if it did our society would look very different. And since large numbers of other mammals are born, live and die without producing offspring, universal reproduction is no more 'natural' than universal heterosexuality.

So any argument based on the notion that heterosexuality is somehow 'natural', and homosexuality is not, falls at the first hurdle. On the contrary, it is bigotry, disgust and fear of homosexuality which is the unnatural burden placed on our species by our history -- and especially, of course, by our choice of Invisible Friend.

Let's see if I've got this correct. The rational argument against same-sex marriage is…

The vital role of male-female gamete union is symbolised by a culturally sacred male-female partnership described by the word marriage. Further, that to apply this single word – marriage – to a same-sex partnership would strip "its deep meaning as a symbol…" and make "meaningless the rite of marriage as a female/male interrelationship…"

Even though "heterosexuality is so important to our survival, so fundamental to the continuation of the species, that we have an ingrained sense that marriage… should not be tampered with" it is apparently so fragile an institution that it would be made "meaningless" if the term included non-male/female unions.

Well, that's okay then – just so long as the argument for exclusionary treatment is Rational!

Ian Robinson

Using your logic and extrapolating to its conclusion; heterosexual marriages that do not result in offspring should be annulled.

You may not be religious but you are using the same argument as used by such as George Pell et al.

Marriage is all about procreation - utter bollocks!

The rise in gay numbers, could be natures way of saying , the boat is full. I mean, any developing or struggling species dont have time to screw about, and this could be a sign that the nature-world-laws-that governs all, maybe an indicator......of humans having hit the top as far as the ladder of evolution is concerned and also, as gay populations grows, the number of new-borns goes down. ( Thats always a good thing ;) However, if the number of gay people were to substantially over-ride our normal growth rates, there's only one word left.........EXTINCTION!

What have we humans done to our-selves.

leap

"Freedom is not the ability to become like other people, freedom is the ability to become more fully yourself! Isn’t this what “Gay Pride” means. There is no pride in making believe you are just like everyone else."

How can one become more "fully yourself" if certain rights only apply to those considered 'normal'.

Heterosexuals have choices, whether it be to procreate, get married or live like a hermit. A homosexual is not able to get married in our modern democratic society. Something is amiss.

The freedom of choice is removed based on a narrow perspective or definition of marriage. For many people, marriage is about commitment as well as any traditional model in which to raise a family. In fact the latter is passe, as many people create families without the need for a marriage certificate.

There is no secular case against same-sex marriage unless marriage is viewed only through the narrow perspective of procreation and there is no valid evolutionary or survival mechanism that mounts a strong case to exclude gays. People have been procreating outside of the marriage model for centuries. One is not connected to the other, only via an out-dated human construct that is discriminatory.

What harm can gay marriage do to the institution of marriage? That is the question? None as far as I can see. It just adds another dimension to shared love and commitment whether children are involved or not.

As the posts above indicate, the so-called rationalist argument has so many factual and logical flaws it resembles a leaky rust bucket.

What this article reveals to me, is the author's thin vaneer of bias for long standing and imposed religious authodox 'hetro only' traditions, established since the persecution of homosexual unions by religious zealots around 2,000 years ago.

Before then, when pagans and their empathy with nature dominated the world, humanity had a less filtered view about the exclusivity of marriage unions.

In an over populated world, perhaps the rational public policy position should be to provide incentives and support to every shade of marriage union that does not pro-create instead of the bonus that deluded politians bestow on those who would breed more homo sapiens.