"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."
-keith

Your point seems to be that you have to be religious to get married. But I don't see why it has to be that way - if I get married, I have the option of a civil celebrant, a nice building that isn't a church, maybe an outdoor wedding, and no mention whatsoever of Flying Spaghetti Monster in the ceremony. And it would still be considered a marriage - except under your proposal, where marriage becomes the sole priviledge of religious folk.

Where's the harm in letting gay people call their 'thing which is legally identical to heterosexual marriage' whatever they want to call it? Where is the harm in that? They're only words, and I hardly think that FSM is going to reach out his noodly appendages and cast folk into the fiery pit if we let gay people get married and call it a marriage, but spare us if we let get them married but only call it a civil union.

"Unfortunately no amount of eloquence will relieve some people’s anxieties about willies and botties."
-Woulfe

Umm, you do realise that that comment was referring to yourself, don't you? Amazing - I have never met anybody so slow as to not realise when somebody is so obviously taking the piss out of them. For the record, I have no problem with using correct language, indeed I welcome it. Although your childish attempt to re-phrase the conversation in terms of 'willies and botties' certainly suggests you have a problem discussing sexual matters in a mature fashion.

"Anal sex is not the sine qua non of heterosex as it is for homosex."
-Proxy

It's not the sine qua non of homosex either, Proxy. If you really are so unimaginative as to believe that intercourse is the be all and end all of sex, then I pity the poor women who have had to suffer through your doubtless lacklustre performances.

"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)?"
-Proxy

An excellent question that I don't the answer to, but by your own reasoning it can't be the anal intercourse - if it was, all those heterosexual buggers would be dropping like flies, but they're not.

Discussion question (above):
<< why are homosexuals 40-80 times more likely to contract HIV/AID's along with many other STD's)?>>

Learned progressive response (above):
<<An excellent question that I don't (have) the answer to>>

The mind boggles!

Here are some clues:
Willies and botties in frequent, random contact.
Some are campaigning to call it marriage.

Riz
My point is about the difference in civil marriages/unions to christian marriages.
NB I'd happily use the term civil marriage to diferentiate between them and christian marriage. I'd expect both to carry the same legal rights. Can and do you? Do you expect Christian marriage and civil marriage to be the same?

Marriage traditionally has been the provence of the churches. A religious marriage has a status that carries with it the belief and adherence of the participants in the values of the church. And that cannot ever be changed.

Secondly it seemed to me that you, originally, expected the churches to accept you and your views and perform their ceromenies for you to give you a nice feeling.

Now that you have since raised the issue of civil marriage (You initially responded to my views on religious marriage not civil marriage) I think it is fine for you to have a civil ceremony and call it a civil marriage and indeed for homosexual couples to do the same. But I think, and most would agree, that civil marriage is merely no more than a civil union and it doesn't carry with it the same depth of belief and adherence to a christian morality as a church conducted christian marriage.

Fot that reason I think marriage should continue be the preserve of the churches and that civil law recognise such traditional, and till now, undisputed difference.

And the simplest way to do that is to use the terms 'civil union' and 'marriage'. Now you might see more clearly why the churches might just switch from using the term marriage to christian marriage. It simply re-inforces and protects their original values, as was once carried in the original term 'marriage'.

So as I said, to ensure equality, simply make civil unions compulsory for all and then don't try to corrupt the traditional idea of the churches christian marriage.

BTW you haven't shown me how the religions are trying to ram their views down anybody's throat.

Do you have a fixation with spaghetti, homosexual sex, fiery pits and noodly appendages? :-)

Isn't there a lot of nonsense being bandied about re the issue of gay marriage?
Some people seem to think that it's only Christians who marry and that the Christian churches and their adherents therefore are entitled to impose their values on the rest of us.
What rubbish. Most people who marry these days do so via a celebrant and don't go anywhere near a church.
If a homosexual couple want to marry, how can it possibly hurt anybody else?

The push for the legalisation of gay marriage is simply another step in removing anachronistic discrimination against homosexuals in Australian society.
If John Howard hadn't changed the Marriage Act in an act of State prudery we probably wouldn't need to have this debate.
If churches are bigoted enough to refuse to marry gay people that is their prerogative.
However, why can't gays marry in civil ceremonies, like most of the rest of us?

"Willies and botties in frequent, random contact."
-Proxy

"but by your own reasoning it can't be the anal intercourse - if it was, all those heterosexual buggers would be dropping like flies, but they're not."
-Me

Are you just going to ignore this point because you don't have the answer to it?

"Some are campaigning to call it marriage."
-Proxy

No we're bloody not - if folk start calling gay casual sex and gay marriage, it's possible they might make the same mistake with straight casual sex, and I might suddenly find myself married to somebody I only wanted to shag. Marriage actually has very little to do with sex, as I'm sure many married men can tell you.

"NB I'd happily use the term civil marriage to diferentiate between them and christian marriage. I'd expect both to carry the same legal rights. Can and do you? Do you expect Christian marriage and civil marriage to be the same?"
-keith

Fair points and well made. As long as we can all get married, I don't care what the Christians get up to in the privacy of their own churches - their quaint belief in undead Jewish magicians is not my concern.

"Marriage traditionally has been the provence of the churches."
-keith

Yes, and it used to be traditional to keep black people as slaves. Tradition alone is a poor reason for doing anything.

"Now you might see more clearly why the churches might just switch from using the term marriage to christian marriage. It simply re-inforces and protects their original values, as was once carried in the original term 'marriage'."
-keith

Well, I see more clearly why the Christian churches might switch from using the term marriage to Christian marriage, but I can't see that idea going down too well with Buddhists, Confucianists, Druids, Flatnoses, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Pagans, Satanists, Sikhs, Taoists, Wiccans, Zoroastrians et. al. Maybe 'twould be best if everybody just got married, and then those who feel strongly about their faith can attach their religion as a prefix, e.g. 'Buddhist marriage'. That should keep everybody happy, right?