Ausieboy there is one thing you are forgetting with your post, when you see two gay guys holcing hands or kissing etc on the TV, at least they are being honest about their sexuality, but Mr presumed straight guy on TV which you do not question is married with three children, looks good in your eyes, but look closer, he may be having an affair with another married man or gay guy or many, never ever take what you see and believe is the gospel truth, men in prison, the armed forces do have sex with other men, not forgetting married men also, we are all including yourself open to temptation with other men if the need arises, the Mardis Gras in Sydney is not and I repeat not your stereotype of gay men take a closer look at the suited business man, you may be surprised.

Well AJ, you appear to have missed the point completely.

>.. until someone can present a rational reason as to why either form of marriage is immoral and should not be allowed, these opinions will continue to be dismissed as bigoted.<

For some, the question of gay-marriage is most certainly one of morality, but that is not my point, or my position, as I thought I had made clear.

My point is that I see a clear need to differentiate between gay and traditional marriage.
Traditional marriage is natural, it conforms with the natural order for the survival of any species; has been, is, and probably ever will be.
You can fudge nature, with in-vitro, embryo transplant, surrogacy and 'donations', but all such interventions are to emulate the natural order.

Gay relationships may be fulfilling, may emulate natural pair-bonding, and should not be criminalized or outlawed out of hand, but they cannot be held to be the natural order for the future beneficial survival of the species.
If there were no gay human relationships, life would go on.
If there were only gay relationships?

I repeat: Where I can agree that the recognition of same-sex unions is arguably in the interest of societal harmony, I can absolutely not agree that such unions should, for all purposes, be considered to be the same as, and in all respects equal to, traditional marriage of one man to one woman.

>Tradition is a fluid concept as is the identity of any given society.<

Societal stability, and the effective nurturing of the young, relies on certain structures being maintained and even enforced - such as the responsibility of spouses for the well-being of each other, and for the well-being of children.
In the world at large, maintenance of stable traditional marriage is at the very foundation of societal stability.

Some traditions need to be maintained.

To equate racial vilification with reservations about the efficacy of or need for gay-marriage, exhibits a bias of extraordinary dimension.

AJ Philips "But the same goes for any view that society deems distasteful."

"until someone can present a rational reason as to why either form of marriage is immoral"

Immoral or distasteful?
Make your your mind.

Neither have much to do the Reason either.

A society doesn't have opinions, only people do.

If people think eating peanut butter with chocolate sprinkles is "immoral", "distasteful" or in any other way objectionable, they should be able to SAY SO.

It doesn't matter whether 99% of the population disagrees with them or not.

And even if others protest, they shouldn't feel the need to resign (undefended by their employer), *implying* that they have no right to express such an opinion (which has nothing to do with their job).

There is actually a quite *rational* justification for opposing interracial marriage: outbreeding depression.
Google it.

You claim gays are being "discriminated" against.

If fact, government departments and most private companies make no distinction between straight married couples, straight unmarried couples or gay couples.

If they're not actually being treated any differently in practice, where's the "discrimination"?

In principle - I am not against same sex marriage - however at the same time I don't like marriage at all.

I feel if your relationship needs a over materialistic $1000+ wedding ring, luxury cake, luxury vehicle, expensive wedding venue and honeymoon..... I could go on - then why are you getting married in the first place?

Furthermore, I was appalled when I was told by a person involved with a church, you can have to pay at least $1000 for a church priest to conduct a ceremony. I always thought this was a free service. Clearly not and I was shocked.

I have always believed (as a single person), that your relationship should be and come naturally. Like with your parents for example. You don't need a wedding for that.

The only issue I have with discrimination on this topic, is I do not support same sex couples going overseas (spending like $20,000) using IVF programs to have children. It is like picking a product off the shelf - when same sex couples cannot naturally have children. I am disgusted by that - with so many people suffering in poor and war torn countries - $20,000 for one child?

If any couple wants to get married, have your day of fun, (a wedding) - fine, but make sure your relationship has a strong foundation to it.

NathanJ
Oh for sure, I personally know people who've gotten married just to experience the wedding day and the honeymoon despite having an unstable, on again-off again relationship, only to divorce a few years later.
That's my position, if Gays want to have weddings and honeymoons who am I to object? I like weddings, the emotion, the ceremony...the free feed mostly LOL..so the more the merrier.
Furthermore everyone deserves the comfort and security of a stable, long term intimate relationship, but as you rightly point out, marriage is not essential to a harmonious personal life.

runner,

Evolution actually disproves such a ridiculous suggestion. But thanks for demonstrating your ignorance once again. It's always entertaining.

Saltpetre,

The survival of our species isn't much of a point because the majority will always be heterosexual. Accepting gay marriage will not change that. And even if we all turned gay generations from now, it would not be because of gay marriage.

<<I repeat: Where I can agree that the recognition of same-sex unions is arguably in the interest of societal harmony, I can absolutely not agree that such unions should, for all purposes, be considered to be the same as, and in all respects equal to, traditional marriage of one man to one woman.>>

Well that's fine. No-one can expect you to feel differently if that's just how you feel. If you at least respect their relationship equally, then that's all that matters.

<<Societal stability, and the effective nurturing of the young, relies on certain structures being maintained and even enforced - such as the responsibility of spouses for the well-being of each other, and for the well-being of children.
In the world at large, maintenance of stable traditional marriage is at the very foundation of societal stability.>>

This assumes that gay marriage (or even parenting) threatens societal stability. Yet there is no evidence to suggest this. As a side note, the nuclear family was only the dominant model of family between the late '40s and the '70s (which explains why older generations feel society is now suddenly caving in). At every other point in time there have been all sorts of different models of family structures from extended families and tribes to single parent families. In fact, most of the innovations that Old Man mentioned occurred when the nuclear family wasn't the dominant family structure, as he had implied.