Dear Ammonite - I may be a step ahead of Suze in matters medical or biological but I'm sure she agrees that 2 men don't make a baby nor 2 women.

One of the 'Parents' in a same sex household with children is not going to be a biological one

“One of the 'Parents' in a same sex household with children is not going to be a biological one.”

Nice one Sherlock. :P

Suze said: “Let's not forget that many homosexuals can and do procreate!”

Can’t fault the comment like Ammo said Suze does seem to know what she's talking about.

The law doesn’t have a problem with same sex adoptions or same sex fostering long term though or gay parents raising half biological child/ren. Or as Ian would call it “pretending” for 18 years.

Yuyu:”why don't people simply get married and not even inform the state/government/politicians about that fact?!”

Good point, a registry office should just register what they are told to.

What about people who have legally married (or entered a civil union) overseas? Is it void here?

Woo hoo! Is it??

DM

Did you read my post? I said:

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

As in Suze knows a lot more about biology than you. Yet somehow you construe this to mean:

>> Dear Ammonite - I may be a step ahead of Suze in matters medical or biological... <<

I think you may need to clarify the meaning of 'ahead' - as in further advanced, more knowledgeable. Therefore, unless you too are a medical professional - Suze remains more aware of the basics of human reproduction than you.

And she would agree that two humans (this does not applies to other earthly life-forms such as snails) of the same gender cannot create a baby without medical help.

WTF all this has to do with discriminating against gay marriage, is irrelevant, apart from revealing your abilities of comprehension.

Cheers.

"How dare anybody tell us who we should sleep with, who we are to marry, what we do with our bodies, who can have children and how." Where does the author even hint at wanting to tell anybody who they should sleep with etc? Where does he argue against homosexuals being allowed to commit themselves to each other just as homosexuals spouses do?

From the first post, supporters of homosexual marriage start shooting down arguments that the author did not make. Is that because it’s easier to refute what he didn’t say than what he did? Jon J opens with , “But homosexuality IS the norm.’ No it isn’t, and Jon J’s confusion is illustrated in his own next sentence, “Some level of homosexual activity is a normal part of life for a large number of mammalian (and other) species.” Of course it is, but being normal doesn’t make something the norm. To be the norm, a behaviour has to be the behaviour of the majority. Left handedness is normal but it is not the norm.

“So any argument based on the notion that heterosexuality is somehow 'natural', and homosexuality is not, falls at the first hurdle.” It would, too, but who makes that argument? OK, some probably do, but that argument is not only not made in this article, it is scrupulously avoided.

The argument for many has got nothing to do with gay rights, which are uncontested. It has got to do with whether the meaning of a single word should be changed when the change not only seems unnecessary but would discomfit a greater proportion of the population than it would soothe.

If marriage means a union between the two sexes, then why not have another word for a union of two same sexes. In fact there could be different words to mean a females union and another for a males union.

Surely there are wordsmiths that would love to invent a couple of new words. They could still have their vows of commitment and a ceremony if they wish, but it be know by different words.

They could be known by the one surname, as do hetro marriages.

Everyone happy.

No Banjo!

:) Thing is what are we going to call a transsexual lesbian who is marrying a hermaphrodite?

I started working out possible combinations and got lost. So best we have one name for all unions.