I always wonder why most comments seem completely oblivious to the existence of gay women. It seems 99% of arguments seem to revolve around gay men and anal sex. As a scientist, the data I would like to see is a comparison of health between;
1. homosexual men
2. homosexual women
3. heterosexual men
4. heterosexual women
Divided between those in monogamous relationships, and those with multiple sex partners.

I believe this would answer questions regarding the effect of different lifestyles on health outcomes.

I hypothesize that factors contributing to poor health outcomes will include promiscuity/multiple sex partners, discrimination and unsafe sex. If this is the case then promoting monogamous relationships, anti-discrimination, and safe-sex should improve outcomes for all of the community. My only question then is why are church groups not doing this already?

They are gay because that is the way they are.
Wattle,
I can accept that. Can you accept then that heterosexuals are simply the way they are & part of that is being against homosexuality ? Do you then also accept any other group i.e. sadists, kleptomaniacs, arsonists etc. etc. because that's the way they are ?
If we let people do what they want to do because the way they are then why are we fighting crime & terrorism etc.? If a heterosexual has no water to wash themselves after an intimate encounter he can still sit next to you & you wouldn't know. Try that with a homo$exual.

...The debate on health aspects and prevalence, or even causes known or unknown, legitimising or explaining-away homosexuality, do not obviate the imperative of resistance to legitimising the open practice of homosexuality, that homosexual marriage does to its cause.

...Homosexual marriage is strictly a social issue, and does not question the prevalence of the homosexual act, but simply attempts to point out the act of homosexuality as "not existing within the accepted norm of society", and as a consequence, should not be officially accepted and legitimised by homosexual marriage rights.

...Simply put, homosexuality is an anti-social act not deserving of "State” recognition through changes to long held traditions of the existing marriage act.

Alan Austin,
Thanks for replying, I personally cannot come up with a valid argument why or why not homosexuals should marry, homosexuality may be dangerous but I don't want to live in a society where the state intervenes on every level to stop "bad" things from happening. Homosexuality is not something I'd want for my children but I'd deal with it if and when became an issue it, as a teetotaller I'm not crazy about people who binge drink at put themselves at risk either so I warn my kids about drinking or getting into cars with people who've had a few. I think the focus of the dangerous aspects of being homosexual has been drawn into the realm of personal taste in this series of posts, it's not just gay sex which is risky, just being part of "Gay Life" is dangerous. Fifteen years ago I was a heavy drinker and drug user and had many homosexual drug buddies in that "underground", so I do know a lot about the criminal aspect of Gay life and outsider cultures generally.There is a need to talk to kids about getting caught up with a dangerous sub culture, "Gay culture" is risky even for non gays who choose to associate with them, anyone who's been to Gay nightclubs knows about the violence, the drugs and the low life elements who congregate in that scene. Years ago I was mistakenly targeted by thugs (and Police) for gay bashings, another straight friend of mine was hospitalised by hoodlums after they jumped him leaving the Bassline nightclub in Melbourne, yet another was injured in a fight with a group of Gays outside Three Faces in South Yarra. I also saw some pretty intense brawls between Lesbians, one night at the Rochester in Fitzroy two groups of girls went at it with pool cues, chairs and glasse were thrown, it's a dangerous lifestyle, being an outsider it always struck me as more dangerous than being around exclusively straight people.

I think that the research quoted is very probably highly flawed. It was produced by a lobby group trying to claim victimhood for their group and therefore looking for worst cases. A decrease in life expectancy of 20 years is huge. It requires a lot of people to die very young given that we know many gays will live to quite happy old ages (Michael Kirby shows no signs of slowing up and he is 73). The only mathematically coherent I explanation I can see is the AIDS epidemic which took out many gay men in their 20s, as well as older men. None of the other explanations could have affected nearly enough people to have this effect.

Stezza, church groups have played huge roles in ministering to the health etc. needs of gay people. My co-panellist on ABC radio's in Brisbane on a Friday morning Janine Walker told me an interesting anecdote last Friday that in the 80s she was on the AIDS Council representing Queensland. Gays in Queensland had particular problems because the Premier didn't believe they existed in Queensland (apparently). She got the gig because she wasn't gay, and because she was female as that shielded them to some extent.

Because of the government opposition the only way they could get funding for the Queensland AIDS Council was to funnel it through the Mater Hospital, where the Sisters of Mercy passed it on to them.

a valid argument why or why not homosexuals should marry,
Jay of Melbourne,
Well,we do let criminals get married in prison but I have not heard of homosexuals doing that. Enlighten us please. Anyhow, as I have stated on several occasions I could not give a hoot what homosexuals do in their time amongst themselves & with each other or to themselves or whatever.
The issue is marriage or rather the word of it. Heterosexuals get married, that's our word. Homosexuals can have a legal union in my book but, BUT do not use our word for it, call it something else. It's like Christianity vs Islam, they all believe in one supreme being but they call it different names because they believe in that difference. You see the operative word here is not marriage it's difference.