And Shockadelic, my irrelevant friend...

<<Immoral or distasteful?
Make your your mind.>>

Erm... The terms 'immoral' and 'distasteful' were in reference to two different things. 'Distasteful' was in reference to the way many view opposition to gay marriage and 'immoral' was in reference to the way those who object to gay marriage view it. Either way it would make no difference.

What an utterly stupid response.

<<Neither have much to do the Reason either.>>

No, by themselves they don't, and nor did I ever imply that they did. What's with the capital 'R', by the way? Is this a special type of reason you're referring to?

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

Correct.

<<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.>>

Absolutely!

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

Sing it, sister!

<<And even if others protest, they shouldn't feel the need to resign...>>

Whether or not they do is a personal matter.

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

Done and done: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outbreeding_depression

And I fail to see how it is a problem in our modern times. Especially in humans, given that our gene pool is one of the smallest on Earth due the a volcanic eruption 70,000 years ago that reduced our population to about 30,000.

If you could point me to some scholarly, peer-reviewed articles supporting the idea that outbreeding depression is severe enough to condemn the love that two people of different races may feel for each other - or has any detrimental effect in humans at all - then please link me to it. I had a look and couldn't find anything.

<<You claim gays are being "discriminated" against.>>

Yes, and not being able to have their relationships recognised in the same way that a committed heterosexual couple can is a form of discrimination. So the rest of your post has been answered and duly ignored.

Nobody can convince me that a man sticking his penis up another man's anus is a natural act. An anus is a one way valve. it was never designed for sexual intercourse. It may be possible to do it, but all you are doing is providing a work for proctologists who have to repair the damage.

My attitude to homosexuality is liberal. If you want to do it, go right ahead. What you do in your own bedrooms is your business. But please, don't say that you want social respectability with normal people.

My attitude to homosexuality is the same as my attitude drinking your own urine. If you want to do it, go right ahead. What you do in your own kitchen is your business. But please, don't try to tell me that drinking your own urine is natural, or that people who drink their own urine should have social equality with people who drink wine. Before you claim that nobody wiould be stupid enough to drink their own urine, think again. The fact that Mahatma Ghandi drank his own pisss was enough to get the western fashionable set doing the same thing to show their solidarity to the struggling third worlders. Actress Sarah Miles used to proudly admit to drinking her own urine.

Here's to the Mahatama. Cheers.

And don' give me any guff on love either. There have been cases where men have had regular sex with their daughters full consent and active participation. If fathers and daughters both wish to commit incest, go right ahead. What you do in your own bedrooms is your business. But don't try to tell me that it is natural, or that fathers and daughters who commit incest should have social respectability. I don't think they should be allowed to call any cohabitation "marriage", either.

The state has no place in personal relationships. Marriage should not be recognised by the state or controlled by that state to give it real status.

We are seeing the state slowly replace the functions of mother and father. There are proposals for the state here to over ride medical decisions of the parents in regards to immunisation and psychiatric treatments such as electro-shock therapy.

It is time we the people asserted our rights and put the state in its place.

Lego you appear to be obessed with sexual acts, Sodomy, Cunnigilus and fellatio are normal sexual acts by the majority of people, irrespective of ones sexuality.
You really must get out more.

Jay Of Melbourne "if Gays want to have weddings and honeymoons who am I to object?"

A lot of people seem to be confusing "weddings" and "marriage", saying "gay marriage" will help the economy.

Formal dress, rings, honeymoon vacations, limousines, reception catering, cakes.

That's not "marriage", that's "weddings".

AJ Philips "This assumes that gay marriage threatens societal stability. Yet there is no evidence to suggest this."

Gay marriage has existed in so few places for so little time, there would hardly be any "evidence" yet of anything at all!

"The terms 'immoral' and 'distasteful' were in reference to two different things."

Both gay marriage *and* opposition to it could be described as such.
Which is the point *I* was making.

"What's with the capital 'R', by the way?"

This "Reason" is the formal *concept* of human thought.
I gave it a capital, which I'm quite entitled to do, to distinguish it from the "reason" people might oppose or support gay marriage.

Resorting to nitpicking over grammar only exposes how shallow you are.

You don't need "scholarly, peer-reviewed articles" to know what applies to animals and plants, applies to humans.

The more distant the genetic relationship, the greater *probability* of outbreeding depression.

Until very recently, East Asian Mongoloids would never have much chance to breed with African Negroids, nor either with Europeans.

When you breed dissimilar people, it's a gamble.

With similar/related people, those lineages have had thousands of years to weed out the possible glitches.

"not being able to have their relationships recognised in the same way"

There's nothing in any discrimination act about access to *symbolism*.

If I cannot buy "chocolate" at a store, but can buy "cocoasolids", an identical product, I'm not being "discriminated" against because the LABELLING is different.

LEGO "Nobody can convince me that a man sticking his penis up another man's anus is a natural act."

Heterosexuals do anal too. Even married ones! Even women on men (with help from modern plastics).

But nobody asks at the alter/registry office what they do in bed (or the kitchen, or the car, or with other kinky swingers...)

This Old Man reads this interchange with despair.
There is no doubt that the productivity which has produced the wealth the First World enjoys has been the result of the creativity of societies which have adopted institutionalised monogamy in its traditional form as its basic building block of society.
I was aware that a High Court Judge had arranged for his pension, on his death, to pass to his boyfriend. If the boyfriend of a soldier killed in action receives the same treatment at least the Government is consistent-- consistently wrong.
A woman severely limits her career prospects by bearing a child.
Certainly the special position of marriage in our society should be limited to situations which do or may give rise to birth.
The special position of traditional marriage DOES "need to be excused or justified" by that phenomenon.
"Society existed ok long before marriage was invented" -but not the society that created the wealth we now enjoy.-
"and will continue on long without it?
Time will tell. The troubles we are facing with substance abuse indicate that, perhaps , it will not.

The myths of romantic love, the Jane Austen "boy meets, girl boy loses girl, boy finds girl" tradition are helpful props to a productive society, when added to the concept of marriage as an institution established for the nurture of children.

If we lose that special status if traditional marriage we are putting in jeopardy the cohesion and progress of our society