There has been a lot of posts since I last looked in, but not much that hasn't been said earlier. Peter Hume's argument against gay marriage seems to be that marriage registration itself is not needed. At least that's internally consistent, and perhaps even correct. But that's an argument for fixing marriage registration, laws on de facto couples etc, not an argument to do nothing on gay marriage.

Shockadelic criticises the "obsession with reason" and claims some reasons presented elsewhere are just opinions. Which is just an opinion itself. A world unable to at least strive for clear reasoned thought is a fairly dismal, postmodern view of our society. I'm not saying there is a right or wrong answer. Quite the opposite in fact. I'm saying that in the absense of a clear right/wrong answer, people should be allowed to make their own choices. That's the basis of our free society.

I am with the author on this one. I'm married - and have been for 50 years and we have grandchildren. I've spent a lfetime fighting for the rights of the disabled, disadvantaged and against discrimination. I applaud the recognition - albeit it took too long - of the legal rights of same sex couples.Same sex civil unions should also be legally recognised and celebrated - but not as "marriage". I have very dear homosexual friends whose comments are the same as mine and, in fact, they find it hard to understand why some sections of the gay and lesbian community won't accept the "civil union" terminology and keep pushing for acceptance of their unions as "marriage". Our friends accept, quite happily that their "union" is different to our "marriage". Provided all the rights and entitlements afforded to couples in "civil unions" are fair, and legally recognised, I reckon the current lobby to change the marriage laws could be counter productive if it lessens the growing community acceptance of "civil unions".

When Robinson writes about his "gay uncle," he says, "I am now almost certain that he was gay and I am grateful that he was. If he had been heterosexual he would most probably have married and had his own children and been too busy with them to give me the benefit of his dignified presence."

I hear this kind of talk a lot from straight people who are "grateful" for their gay friends because somehow, in their minds, gay people make their lives better. I just want to point out that gay people aren't here to make anyone's lives better. We're not helper animals who exist to serve and improve straight people's lives. In fact, Robinson's gladness is kind of disappointing since the benefit he derived from his godfather/uncle's "dignified presence" probably came at the expense of his godfather/uncle's personal and domestic peace. Poor man.

I am an atheist and human rights advocate who feels uncomfortable about the meaning of “marriage” being changed to include same-sex couples. I tried to work out where my unease comes from and expressed my concerns in the opinion piece above. I expected a respectful and reasoned response to my concerns but I mainly got abuse. It worries me that people who would expect their own views to be respected and responded to with understanding are not prepared to give the same respect and understanding to others. Reading the responses above I have learned the following:
• if you are a heterosexual who writes about homosexuality you are in a lose-lose situation: if you are negative about gays you are homophobic / if you are positive about them you are merely cloaking your homophobia with insincere words. You can’t win!
• few people actually read and follow your argument. Most see a few key words, jump to unwarranted conclusions and rush to judgement.
• people seem more interested in your motivations and personality than your arguments.

It seems to me that there is clearly a secular case to be made out against same-sex marriage. The question is does it outweigh the case for such marriage? I’m not at all sure that it does, but I think it has to be at least considered. There is no doubt that we lose something, an important distinction at the very least, by broadening the notion of marriage to include non-reproductive couples. The question to be explored is do we gain more than we lose? Is the loss worth the gain? I think this is a real question that has to be considered (and not merely shouted down) and it may well be that after careful consideration everyone, including me, comes to the conclusion that what is gained by thus redefining marriage more than compensates for the loss of meaning involved, so we all end up supporting same-sex marriage. But the question has to be asked and the conclusion reached by reason without prejudging it. I trust I have contributed to that rational debate.

sauropod "A world unable to at least strive for clear reasoned thought is a fairly dismal, postmodern view of our society."

Dismal?
If anything, a world excusively based on rational thought would be a boring one. I think the ultimate sin of Man is to be boring.
The kind of activists that promote these issues are generally the most boring people on Earth.

A not-exclusively-rational world is one where one culture can decide that wearing a fish on your head is the ultimate in chic.
And other cultures are free to laugh at them (and wear cheese instead).

"I'm not saying there is a right or wrong answer. Quite the opposite in fact. I'm saying that in the absense of a clear right/wrong answer, people should be allowed to make their own choices."

Does that include elected representatives?
Who are "free" to vote against such amendments?

Ian Robinson "I expected a respectful and reasoned response to my concerns but I mainly got abuse. It worries me that people who would expect their own views to be respected and responded to with understanding are not prepared to give the same respect and understanding to others"

Welcome to the wonderful world of Progressivism.
I've given up expecting any kind of sensible reaction from these robots.

Mezzie thank you for your support for same sex couples, however you fail by your arrogant comment that Marriage should only be as you see it!
This is not your world or your life, it belongs to each and every person, that has love in them. Mezzie wish you well but until you have lived life, you have no right to conmment on others emotional needs.