woulfe
Your position is understandable. What right do others have to decide what should be a natural human right for people to marry the person they love. However, I tend to agree with King Hazza that it probably won't come about any other way unless there is a public referendum (shame that it is). Politicians are too driven by the short electoral cycle and human rights play a poor second.

It might not be the optimum way to achieve equality but maybe it will be the only way unless the politicians change and start to show some gumption on this issue.

Al
Polygamy is quite a different thing. While one could argue that humans should have the right to form whatever arrangements they like in regard to their personal lives, the fact is polygamy (unlike gay marriage) involves more than two people and let's be honest it won't be women taking on more than one husband but men amassing wives.

It is odd in that article people are more concerned about single mothers having sex outside marriage than arranging sham marriages just so there can be sex.

It is certainly beyond me how anyone can view http://www.thepotentialweddingalbum.org/ and bring forward semantic polemic about anything except the human rights aspect.

Beyond me is an exaggeration. We all know, or should know, the power of cultural indoctrination. There is no mystery in that. It has always held back societies from necessary progressive advances in the equality stakes.

The good thing is that bigotry eventually falls by the wayside.

David

Dear Pelly

love the way you discuss :)

You said:

"let's be honest it won't be women taking on more than one husband but men amassing wives." Smack on there dear...though I did hear a woman 'caller' from my area a year or 3 back who bragged about going from one toy boy to another.. hmmmm

The context for my post was Rodney Croomes claim that 'no one' would start agitating for 'alternative' patterns of marriage etc... I pointed out that it has already happened....

He was either speaking in ignorance of telling a bare faced lie.
If he is ignorant...then hopefully he read my post :) I was next in line to ask questions at that night in Hawthorn but they shut down the questions b4 I had a chance. (program time limit)

Cheers

"Sorry to disappoint you Rodney but legalising SSM won’t make it normal or natural."
-Proxy

Sorry to dissapoint you Proxy, but invoking the naturalistic fallacy won't make homosexuality wrong.

"The biological imperative is heteronormative because it implies that the sexual drive is somehow linked to reproduction.
That's "crazy" fundamentalist thinking!
No, nature's happiness imperative is what really drives both humans and animals to have sexual relations with their own gender so that they can "find perfect happiness together"."
-Proxy

No, Proxy, "crazy" fundamentalist thinking is believing that people have sex for the sole purpose of reproduction. I can assure you this is not the case, as can all the folk who manufacture contraceptives. Mostly, people dance the horizontal rumba 'coz it's fun. And some people find it more fun to shag someone of the same sex. Exactly what is so threatening about that notion?

"I wonder where AIDs, MRSA, Gay Bowel Syndrome, anal cancer and all those hepatitis' fit in with nature's happiness plan for homosexuals?"
-Proxy

In exactly the same place they fit in with 'nature's happiness plan' for heterosexuals. Sadly, being heterosexual does not offer me or any other heterosexual immunity to the afflictions listed (no, not even Gay Bowel Syndrome – google it). And I'm pretty sure that if I contracted any of them, I'd be rather unhappy. Now, how is my case any different from that of a homosexual?

ALGOREisRICH:
My, that's a lovely red herring there, friend. And whilst I like claret Clupeidae as much as the next man, they are fallacious. So maybe you could leave the posts about polygamy for the discussions about polygamy, and the posts about gay marriage for the discussions about gay marriage? Your assistance in contributing to the quality of the debate is appreciated.

<<how is my case any different from that of a homosexual?>>
The heterosexual's case (assuming this is what you meant) is different from that of a homosexual because the homosexual is statistically many, many times more likely to contract the STD's mentioned (as well as others) as a result of the nature of their behaviour.
Just google "centre for disease control homosexual"
for links like this one:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf

"The heterosexual's case (assuming this is what you meant) is different from that of a homosexual because the homosexual is statistically many, many times more likely to contract the STD's mentioned (as well as others) as a result of the nature of their behaviour."
-Proxy

This is true. But marriage, while by no means ensuring monogamy, does a great deal to encourage monogamy. And monogamy is the 2nd best method after abstinence for limiting the spread of STDs. If you're so worried about STDs amongst the homosexual community, surely it makes sense to support marriage amongst homosexuals?