Pelican,
You avoided the issue of differences between same sex unions and opposite sex unions. There is a word to describe opposite sex unions which is marriage. There is a need for a word, or words, to describe same sex unions. One for the all male union and one for the all female union.

In relation to church sex abuse cases, even the extensive Irish inquiries into this only uncovered a few instances where priests abused girls. The vast majority were of priests abusing boys. That suggests to me that the paedophile priests also had homosexual urges.

It seems open to conjecture as to which urge had the stronger influence on the priests abuse of the boys.

Scatology, eh - now there's a theme I've neglected to ponder...although I once wrote an extremely satisfying uni essay on the history of British sanitation, a la Edwin Chadwick.

Why do you have to have a different word for same sex marriages? Is there a different word for when blondes marry or people from different ethnic backgrounds or for those who speak a different language...you get the drift.

Banjo
What is this focus on priests about in the context of this subject of SSM? You and others are ignoring the majority of child sexual abuse cases against girls. If the fact that some pedophile heterosexuals abuse children as well mean marriage should be banned for heterosexuals.

Pedophiles are attracted to professions where they come into contact with children especially where they are in a position of authority and the Church is one of those jobs. Churches have always been male dominated, priests, priests in training and altar boys, choirs etc. If a pedophile is seeking boys the Church is the place to dwell hence you will find them there.

That is not of course to say all priests are pedophiles. The shame is the Church took so long to remove these predators from access to children let alone criminal recourse.

I have worked with many homosexuals and have three members of family and extended family who are gay and there is not a pedophile bone amongst them.

Squeers and others
Likening SSM to marrying one's pet is tantamount to saying homosexuals are the same as animals. Clearly there is a matter of the mutual consent issue with animals and it is cross species. Does one have to point out the glaringly obvious.

Pelican said "Likening SSM to marrying one's pet is tantamount to saying homosexuals are the same as animals. Clearly there is a matter of the mutual consent issue with animals and it is cross species. Does one have to point out the glaringly obvious."

In case you haven't noticed, some of them are seeing themselves as the next big thing:
http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2009-08-20/news/those-who-practice-bestiality-say-they-re-part-of-the-next-gay-rights-movement/

Here's others on the way:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/three-in-marriage-bed-more-of-a-good-thing/story-e6frg6z6-1226218569577

http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/local_news/water_cooler/woman-entering-gay-marriage-with-building-scheduled-to-be-demolished

http://shine.yahoo.com/love-sex/bride-marries-herself-more-singles-throw-solo-weddings-202200537.html

Though this thread is getting a little weird, we will plug on.

Pelican,
>>why is social reform to include SSM "pushing the boundaries".<<

Somehow I think RMW's above post (with links) - regarding the 'Next Big Thing' (bestiality?) - perhaps says it better than I could - together with stevenlmeyer's comments regarding polygamy and polyandry. Where does one draw the line, and why? For myself the answer is obvious, but the problem is the division is becoming increasingly blurred and confused for so many others. Will some next be calling for pedophilia to be legalised? Or child pornography, or even the marriage of juveniles? Do any suffering from those particular (and perhaps other weirder) predilections not also deserve to have their rights protected and recognised?

OK, it may be quite unfair to lump homosexuality with currently unacceptable 'deviations', but do you not think SSM could only act to further blur acceptable boundaries - and for what gain? SS-Union provides recognition and extension of rights, so what is actually to be gained by pushing the envelope?

Society has taken a great and warranted step in recognising homosexuality as a simple 'variation' of the human condition, but for some this acceptance still remains difficult and confronting, and I doubt that a majority of society actually appreciates having gay rights splashed in their faces. Why? Possibly because not all homosexuality is just good clean fun.

There is a reasonable limit to societal tolerance, beyond which lies a minefield of uncertainty. I would contend that society is already going off the rails in terms of social liberties and personal responsibility, and I don't appreciate the current trend. Time to draw a line, and probably to take a step or two backwards in some respects.

P.S. It's a pity some have misconstrued Squeers' humour; they are missing a good thing.

Thanks for noticing my lame attempt at humour, Saltpetre. Actually I don't have a pet at all, and being 188 cm, there'd be a serious problem of scale if I was besotted with a Shih Tzu!
And yes, Pelican, the issue of consent must be problematic, we'll have to leave that conundrum to Peter Singer.
The only interest I have in scatology, Poirot, is the author I mentioned scandalously deconstructs our conceited notions of civilization and nation-building, arguing instead that modern life and sensibilities, and even the sanitation of language we practice, all derive from the history of sh!t management. Population growth and infrastructure and innovation have all been largely facilitated by how we deal with sh!t, since it's the most tangible by-product of consumption and the incubator of disease. Sewers and modern medicine are part of the history of sh!t management that has allowed our consumption-based civilisation to burgeon. But we remain in a closed system that's starting to pong. The broadscale sh!t we're in now, land, air and sea, can be argued to be the consumatum est of Western civilisation. A rather ignominious narrative compared with the fairy tales we generally flatter ourselves with.

But back on topic, in truth I completely respect the legitimacy of gay relationships and see no reason whatever why homosexuals shouldn't be entitled to the same recognition as any other couple--there's a downside though, for them; as couples their centrelink pensions would be less than they would be if they were cohabiting singles.
I do think stevenlmeyer has a point in that bigamy has religious overtones and there's no reason why men or women shouldn't have multiple partners; as he says, they very often do anyway.

My concern is that gays are getting more conservative, if they're taking marriage seriously, rather than that society is becoming more tolerant, democratic or enlightened. Although homosexuality, without artificial interventions, ought to preclude reproduction and thus result in less consumption and sh!t in the long term. Male homosexuality is also nicely symbolic of the overriding need for our civilisation to push sh!t back where it came from.