"just so long as the argument for exclusionary treatment is Rational!"

But that's just it, rational WmTrevor and "logical" Ammonite.
Marriage *isn't* rational.
It's symbolism.

But you leftist/atheist/progressive/whatevers never get it.

I've had numerous experiences with you Science/Reason fanatics, and you just don't get anything non-literal.

Symbolism, metaphor, hypothesis, analogy.
In one ear and out the other.
Bunny in the headlights.

Why on Earth do gays want "marriage"?
Most straights don't get married these days and most of those marriages fail.
Are you aware of the relationship turnover rate in the gay community?
I'm sure the lawyers want gay marriage!

Quick response: "thin vaneer of bias for long standing and imposed religious authodox 'hetro only' traditions"

Another bunny.
Don't you get it? Even if religion had NEVER existed, there'd be a social bias favoring heterosexuality, precisely for the symbolic and practical motives reasons stated in the article.

Lexi "What business is it of anyone as to who marries whom?"

Because you live in a *society* with *other* people.
You are not free to marry children, 37 different spouses, your dog or your recently deceased lover.
There are always limits.

sauropod "The onus is on opponents of gay marriage to justify their position."

No, currently there's no such thing as "gay marriage".
It's something *you* want to invent and introduce to society.
The onus is on you to justify this.

Gays can already jointly own property and inherit assets.
They can have children.
They can have a wedding to celebrate their relationship publicly.
Right now.

It's really all about approval, homosexuals want respectability hence they wish to make playing in the waste disposal unit on a par with playing in the fun parlor.

There will always be resistance by heterosexuals to attempts to make homosexuality equal to heterosexuality.

Gee, I throw a few words down about this thread before I set off for work this morning, and return home this evening to find others arguing over my ability to understand biology or not? Lol!

I learnt about it all fairly extensively in my midwifery training, and yes I even delivered babies from lesbian women!
And guess what, they screamed just as much, and loved their babies just as much as the labouring heterosexual women I assisted.

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

True enough. But then neither do adopted children or stepchildren live in families with both their biological parents present.

Does that fact make these families any less effective at parenting, or any less worthy of being married than those families where both are biological parents are present?

As others have said, does being childless, or not having your own biological child living with you, make you unworthy of marriage?

@Shockadelic,
>No, currently there's no such thing as "gay marriage".
>It's something *you* want to invent and introduce to society.
>The onus is on you to justify this.

No. That would be like asking women to justify why they should have the vote, or slaves to justify why they should be free.

As you point out, same sex families already exist, they have children, and have weddings. Gay marriage is not a new invention. It already exists and people are doing it. The issue is that the government refuses to register them.

> You are not free to marry children, 37 different spouses,
> your dog or your recently deceased lover.

There are valid reasons for each of these restrictions. The restriction on polygamy is justified by the need to protect women (usually) and to avoid the instability and unfairness which would arise from lots of one sex (usually men) having no potential partners. A person wishing to have children, but with no prospect of finding a mate has a diminished interest in building a stable society and abiding by the law.

I am yet to hear a similarly valid reason against gay marriage. The 'no' case needs to explain how gay marriage will similarly threaten the stability of society, or diminish the welfare other people

Philo bluntly but persuasively argues that the sexual activities of male homosexuals indicates their low esteem of their biology, their offspring, themselves and their future.

(OLO, 24 April 2011 8:47:11 AM in ‘Are Christians really the source of Oz values’ by Leslie Cannold)

Contrast that with the optimism, hope, trust and potential that is entered into the participants of actual marriage (as defined up to 30 April 2011 anyhow).

The biological and existential nihilism of homosexuality cannot be accommodated within marriage. It’s up to the homosexual community to think up another term (and conditions) for their proposal.

Well put sauropod.

" The 'no' case needs to explain how gay marriage will similarly threaten the stability of society, or diminish the welfare other people"

It boils down to personal prejudice nothing more and has little to do with symbolism.

The reality is gay people exist, they always have. The presence of homosexuals indicates it is perfectly normal and natural. Natural defined as 'in existence' or 'occurring in nature' - it does not have to be the average or the norm to require special attention in terms of equal rights and respect. Do we insist disabled people cannot marry because they are the minority? Or blondes? Or blue-eyed people?

Thankfully most younger people accept gays as perfectly normal and can't see what all the fuss is about, change for the better is inevitable.