Proxy mate! I wish you well.
Please though! Get some help, as life is about living; and it is so easy!!

Morality! Discrimmination? It's neither - nor need God get a guernsey.

This subject of gay marriage seems to have totally missed the fundamental objective of marriage - which the Marriage Act defines as being between a man and a woman. That fundamental objective is the continuity/perepetuation/reproduction of the human race - preferably so that future humans may develop through the nurture of their mother and father, within the potential stability of a family (forget marriage breakdown for the purposes of this debate).

Gay couples simply cannot contribute to the reproduction of our human race on those terms, for obvious biological reasons. So there is no discrimmination whatsoever, gays simply cannot qualify. So it follows that there is no moral issue either.

If the Marriage Act is to be changed at all, then let's insert the fundamental purpose of marriage. The underqualified gay population is faced with settling for Legal Unions - or some other more friendly device, yet to be coined. In this context, gays are different to 'straights' and they just have to live with that difference. There is no 'fault', they are absolutely normal - products of the normal distribution of hormones among humans - which unfortunately does not qualify them for reproduction - and therefore, marriage.

I'm not so sure of your theory of hormone causation, otherwise curing the poor devils would be as simple as re-balancing their hormones.
Apart from that, commonsense commentary on homosexual self-exclusion from marriage.
Overall, I have no beef with your arguments.

... The "fundamental objective [of marriage] is the continuity/ perepetuation/ reproduction of the human race" -
Posted by Beef, Monday, 13 December 2010 9:45:24 PM

No, reproduction is just the consequence of sex.

" .. the Marriage Act defines [marriage] as being between a man and a woman.""

Only in recent times.

"" (forget marriage breakdown for the purposes of this debate). "" ... to shore up the distorted view that gay parenting does not give a mother and a father through child-hood like heterosexual parenting *might*

""So there is no discrimmination whatsoever, gays simply cannot qualify. So it follows that there is no moral issue either.""

Pull the other one, Beef. Moral issues include the sidelining of significant points like
* marriage breakdown,
* gay parenting is no less than heterosexual parenting,
* the point that all children have a biological mother and biological father, regardless of whether they live in one or two parent or "pseudo-parent" households, anyway.

"The fundamental objective [of marriage] is the continuity/ perepetuation/ reproduction of the human race" -
Posted by Beef, Monday, 13 December 2010 9:45:24 PM

<<No, reproduction is just the consequence of sex.>>

Looks like you tripped yourself up with a "heteronormative" statement.

Yes, reproduction is a consequence of normal sex.
No, reproduction can never be a consequence of homosex.

For the consequences of homosex you need to look to the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control:

- HIV/AID's
- Anal cancer
- Gonorrhoea
- Syphilis
- MRSA
- early death
- etc
- etc
- etc