"Ken Davis is right about sexual orientation, it is not chosen in a way that the other description as "sexual preference" may suggest. While we have no idea of the biology or the psychology of sexual orientation we do know that it is deeply rooted and not amenable to manipulation. In other words it is gifted in the same way that being hetero is gifted."

Actually Ken Davis is wrong, "sexual orientation," "sexual preference" or whatever you want to call it this week, is chosen, we have much knowledge of the biology* and the psychology* of sexual orientation and we do know that it is not at all rooted and is amenable to manipulation. You've been watching way too much left-winger vision.

*There is nothing biological about the gay mentality. It is strictly psychological. Nature has never produced a homosexual. They are a product of extremely low self esteem. Turn off your T.V. and stop believing what you read on left-wing blogs. The left hates truth, reality, nature and science because all of those things disagree 100% with the lefts' fantasies.

And there is no such thing as "the human condition." Life is not a disease; the left-wing mentality, which is based on self-hatred, is a disease.

@Shadow Minister

Stay in the shadows. You embarrass yourself when you hit the light.

"The obvious flaw in the argument is that many gay unions produce children."

No gay union has ever produced a child, nor can one.

"... the Ontological boundaries are very blurred."

Uh, no. They're very well defined. Male + Female = Child. See? No blur.

@Jon J & Priscillian

Read much? Please don't ever claim to have "read the bill." You can't even read a short article, like this.

@Zoe Brain

Male and female are two different genders, kid. Get used to it.

"The terms "men" and "women" are social constructs, the definitions change from place to place and time to time. The definitions are based on objective realities, but the conclusions differ. The same facts lead to one result in one place, the opposite in another."

That is 100% wrong. And taking that quote out of context is also wrong. You probably thought no one would call you out on it. What you failed to mention is that "Mrs. Littleton" was a dude. Gender is not a "social construct." It is a fact of nature.

Just as countries with "democratic" in their titles are exclusively tyrannical, posters with "truth" in their name are generally interested in pushing their own version of dogma.

Thousands of children each year are born into homosexual unions in much the same way, using the same techniques, as thousands of true blue "marriages" in which there are fertility problems. The argument in this article is thus specious, as is the argument that "man + women = child"

Just as posters with "shadow" in their names are always shady characters and left-wingers never have a clue.

You seem to need this repeated: "No gay union has ever produced a child, nor can one."

It is not a "version of dogma" and certainly is not specious; it is reality. But, you are trying to bend it with medical treatments, which are as unnatural as gays. And, even in 100% of those cases, it takes a male and a female. Furthermore, your use of these artificial methods in your baseless "argument" just verifies that you agree: man + woman = child; man + man = null; woman + woman = null.

You said that "man + women = child" is specious — BACK IT UP! Point out one case in which two males or two females had sex and produced offspring. You will NEVER find that in nature. EVER. So, good luck trying to prove it.

The threat of women voting is that it erases difference that is indelible to the human condition. While political correctness champions the acceptance of difference, and I agree that women should not be discriminated against, it also erases difference so that we have to ignore gender.

The gay marriage campaign has relied on dishonesty from the start in claiming that gays may not marry.

All consenting adults, including gays, have the right to marry; i.e., to form an exclusive and lifelong union with one person of the opposite sex. Strangely, some people who have this right and understandably do not want to exercise it demand that the word used to describe this right be used to describe the thing they actually want. They do so with the usual emotional appeals to equality and attacks on their opponents as redneck religious homophobic bigots, but it is as silly as members of the Labor Party demanding to be called Liberals on the grounds of political equality or vegetarians demanding the right to eat meat, by which they mean not the flesh of animals, but that vegetables be called meat, on the grounds of meat equality or those adopting children demanding to be called pregnant on the grounds of procreation equality.

It is not about rights or acceptance. It never has been. These claims are just debating tactics. The fact that marriage means the exclusive and lifelong union of one male and one female does not detract from the rights of gays any more than the fact that a car is not a train detracts from the rights of car drivers. If same sex couples want a lifelong and exclusive union of one man and another man and of one woman and another woman, they can already have it. If they want legal recognition of that union, that is fine by me. But it is not marriage, just as, in our society, one man cannot legally have two wives (though he is free to live with two women) and one woman cannot legally have two husbands (though she is free to live with two men).