Let's not forget that many homosexuals can and do procreate!

I still don't see how two women, or two men deciding to live and sleep together can possibly affect anyone else, secular or not.

As an Australian heterosexual who spent 10 of his formative years in another culture that is non-homophobic, I find this article amazing but not surprising. The 'logic' used by the writer to reach his incoherent conclusion appears, to me, to do the Rationalist Society of Australia a disservice.

EbenezerCooke I was thinking the same thing. AS a secularist myself and a lover of science he hasn't made me want to join his little group to help out.

I really don't understand what the problem here is why should homosexual pairing been seen as less valid then hetro? My wife and i don't have kids and don't want kids does that mean our marriage has less value then one that does?

Obviously in a roundabout way and not biologically with their same sex partners, Suze!

Jon J.
Robinson writes: "...we should thank whatever evolutionary forces made it a fact that it is normal that a percentage of the population at any one time will be drawn to same-sex rather than heterosexual unions. Homosexuality is normal, but it is not the norm ..."

How is this "any argument based on the notion that heterosexuality is somehow 'natural', and homosexuality is not .." as you state? Did you actually read the article?

I'm with the Author. I want to see same sex couples enjoy the same rights as their hetero counterparts through legislation that conveys legal protection and recognition of their partnerships. However I also believe 'marriage' is the domain of the heterosexual world. Plus there is that "We are different! Vive la difference!" factor in the more vocal Gay Pride ranks. So why the urge to be pretend straights? A bit of having one's cake and eating it too?

None of my homosexual friends are interested but that may reflect their ages and stages - all late middle aged or older, settled and don't see the need. (As says old mate Graham, recently turned 80, "OMG! What is it with queers these days?)

In the scheme of things it is not likely to mean the end of civilisation as we know it if same sex marriage is legalised but I doubt there will be a single benefit to society either. If anyone can put foward convincing argument as to how it would, please surprise me.

"in a non-religious sense, it is sacred; that is to say, heterosexuality is so important to our survival, so fundamental to the continuation of the species"

According to dictionary.com, "sacred" means:

–adjective
1. devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; consecrated.
2. entitled to veneration or religious respect by association with divinity or divine things; holy.
3. pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to secular or profane): sacred music; sacred books.

What's so sacred about the continuation of the human species? Isn't humanism but an attempt at a new religion?

DM

>> Obviously in a roundabout way and not biologically with their same sex partners, Suze! <<

As Suze is a nurse, I posit she is way ahead of you on matters biological.

>> In the scheme of things it is not likely to mean the end of civilisation as we know it if same sex marriage is legalised but I doubt there will be a single benefit to society either. If anyone can put foward convincing argument as to how it would, please surprise me. <<

Gay marriage benefits the world as much as heterosexual marriage does - which is open to interpretation.

My take on it is that legalising gay marriage means one less nasty bit of discrimination against a group of people.