@wmTrevor- your assessment of me personally is without basis and uninformed as you do not even know me, and I know that it came from anger and insecurity but I understand totally where you are at. I am simply providing a different way and I know my life now proves that homosexuality does not have to be the only choice just because it is a desire. This threatens all arguments by gay people and you obviously will not like that.

@Kipp - The answer is no. When we live according to Gods decrees we can sleep with a peace that I hope one day you will seek to understand.

There are two observations that I would like to make about the above. Firstly the arguments based on rights is shown to be vacuous. I assert my right and you assert your right and that ends the discussion. We end up, not with an intelligent and nuanced discussion but with an endless competition about whose rights are right.

Secondly, certainly marriage is a socials construct but that does not mean that it is endlessly changeable or worthless. Social constructs like marriage rest on real difference in the world, that between the sexes. This is the missing element in social constructionists, they appear to deny the reality of a real world and pretend to live in a world entirely of their own imagining. Social constructions like marriage evolve as a means of helpfully negotiating the real world of men and women and the rearing of children. As such marriage is not endlessly changeable, indeed the fundamentals are invariable and actually voiced during the Christian marriage order.

Peter Sellick

Sells

If marriage is a social construct, as you concede, then it is surely not “ontological”.

As you say, marriage has evolved in response to human needs and priorities. It is not fixed through time – practices such as child marriage and polygamy that were common in the past (and still are in some cultures) are no longer acceptable in western societies.

It is not an imagined world that shapes the opinions of those who support marriage reform. Rather, it is changes in the “real” world.

In part, this comes from growing belief that homosexuality is not a perversion or lifestyle choice but is intrinsic to a person’s identify - “gifted”, as you describe.

In my opinion, more influential are changes in the social role of marriage more broadly, which in turn reflect a radical shift in what you call the “ontological” basis of marriage - the relationship between sex and the production and raising of children.

In particular, thanks to technology, it is no longer necessary to have sex to have children; and it is possible to have sex without any risk of having children.

Partly as a result: birth rates have fallen rapidly as couples choose to have fewer children; women are no longer reliant on men for economic and practical support to raise their children; the social taboos on sex before marriage (for women) and illegitimacy have all but disappeared; many married couples choose to have no children at all; divorce has become easier, more common and more socially acceptable; and many couples choose to live in long-term relationships (with or without children) without getting married.

As the biological and economic drivers underpinning traditional marriage diminish, marriage has weakened and its role has changed. Marriage is no longer necessitated by human (hetero) sexuality and its consequences. The emphasis nowadays is on affirming and supporting the choice of two people to commit to a permanent, loving relationship.

Even without recourse to "rights" language, there is no reason to confine marriage as currently understood to a man and a woman.

'Gay marriage has been legalized in some US states ' Feel free to move there. In Iran polygamy is legal.

Tim Lumsden,
Homosexuality is natural, but as a natural phenomenon it's worthy of neither revulsion or exaltation, your troubled soul might be soothed by reading Julius Evola or Alain Danielou, I believe they'd make sense to a "spiritual" person.

@Kenny, posters with Truth in their handle are usually correct. That's because we do not fear truth and couldn't care less what those who do think about us telling it. Peer pressure does not affect the truth; it affects those who deny the truth. Those who deny truth are terrified of reality and need to ask ridiculous questions, like "What is gender how do you define male and female?" Sorry, but a person has to be seriously uneducated to ask that question. Ignore the peer pressure, Kenny. Ignooooooore....

@Shadow Minister, "The Truth, thinks that the two marriage partners need to be able to have sex and produce offspring to be legally married."

No, he does not. Nor has he ever implied that. How typical of a thought police to project your childish delusions onto someone who dwells outside of your fantasy. Every time that you touch your keyboard, you venture further from reality.

"Children are born into lesbian unions every day in Australia." The reason that you keep retyping that over and over again is because you still can't get over the fact that same-gender partners cannot reproduce. That one fact, alone, wipes out every losing argument that you think you have in favor of homosexuality.

@Brian333, "There would be no need for a gay couple to find a third party." Sure there would. How do two gay dudes have a child without a third party? "Clone" does not mean "Uhg, magically appears from sky with feathers and gum drops." The child is carried by a female. Female = third party. And, in the case of two females, cloning still requires a male. Male + Female = Two Genders. Get it? There MUST be an egg and there MUST be fertilization. Egg = Female, Fertilization = Male. It's that simple.

@Zoe Brain, I'm not referring to the legality B.S. I'm referring to the fact that "she" was born a he. That's what you left out. It is not a legitimate argument when you take little quotes way out of context and spin them as fact, while leaving out pertinent information.