Lexi (Extracts from Jay's link, Cont'd):

"Male Homosexuals
. The Dutch study of partnered homosexuals, which was published in the journal AIDS, found that men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year.

· Bell and Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having one thousand or more sex partners."

"Commitment" in Male Homosexual Couples
Even in those homosexual relationships in which the partners consider themselves to be in a committed relationship, the meaning of "committed" or "monogamous" typically means something radically different than in heterosexual marriage.

· A Canadian study of homosexual men who had been in committed relationships lasting longer than one year found that only 25 percent of those interviewed reported being monogamous."

"According to McWhirter and Mattison, most homosexual men understood sexual relations outside the relationship to be the norm and viewed adopting monogamous standards as an act of oppression."

"While the rate of fidelity within marriage cited by these studies remains far from ideal, there is a significant difference between the negligible lifetime fidelity rate cited for homosexuals and the 75 to 90 percent cited for married couples. This indicates that even "committed" homosexual relationships display a fundamental incapacity for the faithfulness and commitment that is axiomatic to the institution of marriage."

"LEVEL OF COMMITMENT IN HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS

If homosexuals and lesbians truly desired the same kind of commitment signified by marriage, then one would expect them to take advantage of the opportunity to enter into civil unions or registered partnerships, which grant them legal recognition as well as the legal rights of marriage. However, surprisingly few homosexuals and lesbians choose to enter into such legally recognized unions where such arrangements are available, indicating that such couples do not share the same view of commitment as typified by married couples."

My conclusion: The above speaks for itself - gay union is far from marriage, and "gay" is far from "straight".

"To most people this is a trivial issue anyway".

Clearly, with 12 posts on the subject in 4 days, Jay isn't one of them.

Saltpetre

Obviously going around in circles here.

You claim: >> My response: Gays having the right to "marriage" can do little if anything to alter societal prejudice, but rather, "gays" pushing for "marriage" is far more likely to alienate many more than it will impress. <<

Denying people full citizenship which includes marriage if they so choose, is more alienating than including people. It creates further division between people. Like locking up little children because they arrive in Australia on a boat - that's alienating as well.

Marriage isn't for everyone, but it is a choice for all except gay and lesbian people.

Current legislation discriminates as Lexi has clearly stated.

It is not making a 'special' law for a minority group, but SSM is including people to the same opportunities to life that straights have. Like the right of all children to education, or for people to find employment and not be discriminated against for sex, race or religion (or lack thereof). In fact we do make 'special' laws for a minority; Christian organisations are permitted to employ only other Christians.

Not long ago blacks were not permitted to marry whites. It is the same kind of discrimination.

As for JoM - I have no idea what you are going on about. I suppose you would think I am 'white' simply because I have white skin, despite my genealogy. And it is no surprise to find that you object to SSM, you have made that very clear.

Ammonite.
The point is that the "Gay" revolutionary movement are portraying this as an issue of "equality" when it isn't, homosexuality and heterosexuality are completely different and have different lifestyles attached to them.
At it's most basic level the fact is that, barring medical complications a heterosexual couple can produce children "straight out of the box", as it were,they don't need the intervention of others, homosexuals can't, therefore there is no "equality".
You can build up all the straw men and apply all the social constructs you can devise to this issue but the fact remains that the primary reason for marriage among the spectrum of human tribes is procreation, always has been, always will be.
As a man who's been married for 22 years I think I'm in a somewhat stronger position on this issue than you are.
In my experience people who marry for "love" don't last long, true love grows within a marriage over time and the arrival of children is the ultimate test.
Homosexuals don't understand what marriage really means, they can't, because they'll never experience it in the same way as heterosexual couples.

JoM

As a heterosexual male married for 22 years to a woman(?), you claim same sex couples have completely different relationships?

How would you know? At least I have experienced both and in both relationships love, respect and friendship as well as common interests are very important.

Interesting that you don't believe love is important in a relationship. You are revealing yourself to be very ignorant on many issues.

Come on folks be realistic. Didn't you go to school and study history.
Things change, even with religious beliefs, civilisation advances, so too same-sex marriage will be just a hiccup in world's history.

Look at the furor by religious groups when ordainment of women as priests was suggested. But look at things now. Some religions have already advanced. The same went with inter-racial and cross-religion marrianges. No matter how much you protest the majority of the population is accepting the introduction of legislation to allow for same-sex marriages.

There are ancient groups that became hysterical when the sun disappeared in the sky but it was only an eclipse, and life continued as normal.