AJ,

Didn't you read all my comments?

Having the same legal rights and recognition could be achieved if we made
'...Civil Unions compulsory for all. Leave marriage to the churches. Marriage becomes an add on with no extra benefits except for those who value and uphold christian beliefs.'

But it seems to me the homosexual lobby want more than equality of legal rights and recognition ...I think they want the churches to endorse their lifestyles. An impossibility because the churches opine that lifestyle to be an abomination.

It seems to me the homosexual lobby wants to force change to the churches opinion. I don't think that at all realistic unless we, as a community, decide to outlaw churches from forming their own moral codes. And that's just plain idiotic.

"Civil Unions compulsory for all. Leave marriage to the churches. Marriage becomes an add on with no extra benefits except for those who value and uphold christian beliefs."
-keith

I mostly agree with you keith. Mostly. 'Coz I'm an atheist, and I don't want aught to do with any church, but some day I hope to ask the right woman to marry me. NB: 'marry me', not 'civil union me'. It just doesn't have quite the same ring to it (no pun intended).

It isn't just about the same legal rights, no matter what some folk claim - it's about full equal rights. Including the ones that don't get written up in statute books. Such as the right not to be bullied just for being who they are, and the right to get married, and the right to be left alone to get on with their lives in peace - a right that far too many people take for granted. Yeah, I know it's a tall order - but I think there is enough decency within mankind to fill it.

"I think they want the churches to endorse their lifestyles. An impossibility because the churches opine that lifestyle to be an abomination."
-keith

I don't think they want the church to endorse their lifestyle. I don't think they want the churches opining their lifestyle to be an abomination (I wouldn't take kindly to such opining and I doubt you would either). I think they want the churches to mind their own damn business, and stay the [expletive deleted] out of their personal lives unless invited in.

"It seems to me the homosexual lobby wants to force change to the churches opinion."
-keith

It seems to me that the homosexual lobby is quite happy for the churches to have their own opinion, they're just none too keen on having it forced down their throat. Can you really blame them?

<< Sex is fun, Proxy, and trying to convince folk that they shouldn't have fun just by bullying them is unlikely to prove a fruitful strategy.>>
Nobody is "trying to convince folk that they shouldn't have fun".
Just trying to stop them from hijacking marriage.
By the way, it's difficult to think of a less "fruitful strategy" than homosexual "marriage".

"Nobody is "trying to convince folk that they shouldn't have fun".
Just trying to stop them from hijacking marriage."
-Proxy

Really? 'Coz that's definitely not the impression I get from all those comments you make about penises and anuses. So pull the other one, mister - it's got bells on it.

If you were just worried about gay marriage, you'd just argue about gay marriage, and leave gay sex where it belongs: as an irrelevant side issue. But whenever the debate fares badly for you, you just can't help yourself from running back to your statistics about anal sex and STD's. By the way, many heterosexual couples have anal sex.

hi riz ,

and therein lies the crux. Would you try to force your atheist views onto the churches?

How do you think the churches would react if you sauntered up to the local mnister/priest/preacher and said, hey listen marry me to my partner because it makes us feel good and the idea of marriage has a good ring to it but don't expect us to adhere to your values and ideas because we 'don't want aught to do with you'?

I giggled as I wrote that ... I hope you do too. I think you'll get my point.

I haven't seen the churches ram anything down anybody's throat recently. Can you cite an example please?

And I do think it's ok for the churches to hold their opinions just as I think it is ok the homosexual lobby to hold theirs.

I mostly disagree with both but am particularly ambivalent towards religions

<<all those comments you make about penises and anuses>>
Take some words of comfort from your bedfellow who refers to the same but in a child-like form that is perhap more palatable to you:
"Unfortunately no amount of eloquence will relieve some people’s anxieties about willies and botties."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11169#188532

<By the way, many heterosexual couples have anal sex>>
Anal sex is not the sine qua non of heterosex as it is for homosex.

If <<many heterosexual couples have anal sex>> and anal sex is a vector for HIV/AID's, why are homosexuals 40-80 times more likely to contract the disease (along with many other STD's)?