Thanks Bill for an excellent article on the family as most of the World's population understand a family to be. All of those billions of people in the world will need more than the arguments the homosexual males and females are putting forward to convince them that a change is needful AND will work. I feel very sorry for the homosexual lobby groups perhaps especially the high profile men and women of this chosen way of living, as they obviously feel they need to destroy what the world regards as normal to believe they are okay and normal themselves. Could it be that rebellion, hatred and negativity is the real issue here and these people feel they must destroy what the majority believe in to give them a sense of normality?

In response to "Cat", who has leapt to Bill's defence against my alleged "personal attacks", consider this. Bill writes an essay on the family that is composed mostly of quotations from a very select bunch of early twentieth century "cultural anthropologists", most of them very obscure and none of them at all convincing. Bill purports thereby to provide that "the family unit [meaning the nuclear family], cemented by marriage, has been the predominant form of family life in most cultures throughout history". In fact, Bill has proved no such thing. (Most reputable modern scholarship would tell you that for hundreds of thousands of years humans evolved as nomadic gatherers and hunters and most likely lived in small groups of 20-30, not as lonely and isolated "nuclear" family units, and that the so-called nuclear family is a social construct of relatively recent origin, convenient as an economic unit of organisation, and blessed, if not invented by, the major religions as a way of keeping women and children (and gays) in their god-ordained place.) But just in case there are any scoffers out there, Bill tells us that he is a "PhD candidate" and "lecturer", presumably to leave the impression that he really knows what he is talking about. Cat, you should be asking yourself why Bill bothered to mention this in his by-line, and you should be more curious about whether Bill is telling you all there is to know about the subject, in a fair and rational manner, reaching a defensible conclusion, that we can all debate on even ground, or whether Bill is just spinning you a yarn, based on biased and irresponsible "evidence", and having a good chuckle watching you all get your knickers in a knot. When someone publishes an essay which purports to speak with the authority of the academic "elites" (PhD student and lecturer) you should first question whether they actually have a right to that authority. This is not being "personal", this is being sceptical.

In response to "Big Al", who accuses me of being a sneering ill-mannered racist for using the german word "Herr" (Mr) in addressing Bill Meuhlenberg, and "pouring cold water" on Bill's studentship, consider this. Germans are not a "race", any more than Australians are a "race" (although the Aboriginal people can make that claim after more than 40,000 years on this land). To address a man of germanic descent as "Herr" is actually a form of good manners, not sneering ill-mannered racism, Big Al. But I do confess to having a bit of a go at Herr Bill. It is rather teutonic of him to imply that women are only good for "kinde, kirche, and kuche", and that men must rule the family roost, don't you think? Not to mention completely out of touch with reality. And as for "pouring cold water" on Herr Bill's studentship, nowhere did I say that Herr Bill is not really a PhD student, as both you and Cat seem to infer. My question was - what is Herr Bill studying, does this have any relationship to the subject at hand, and why did he bother to mention it in the first place?

As for my personal take on Herr Bill's nuclear family thesis - it is nothing but self-serving tosh. For the past 5000 years or so, human history has been written about men, for men, and by men. Men have a real problem in understanding where they belong in the universe, as it is women who give birth and provide the children who are the true vessels of our immortality as human beings. Until very recently, men had no way of knowing whether the children they supported were actually their own, making real problems for the handing on of their wealth and the securing of their estates (not a problem in our evolutionary nomadic past). Hence the rise of organised patriarchal religions, marriage and the "nuclear family", man-made constructs designed to ensure that women only gave birth to children that "belonged" to one man, and that they never questioned their subservient position in the grand scheme of things. It is this male notion of "ownership" of women that continues to give us all such grief. And what about gays, who have no investment in childbirth? Once they might have been our historians and shamans, our musicians and artists, and our brothers and sisters who helped with teaching and child-rearing. In other words, friends of women, and the enemy of the kind of men who want to live in Herr Bill's sad and narrow little world.

DavidJS,

Apologies for not replying sooner.
While I wouldn't try to contend with your statement about gay (or at least homosexual) relationships being with us throughout history I would argue that such an observation still doesn't make your case. There are many things which have been around for just as long that I'm sure you would not like to see widely accepted in our society. While I'm not particularly familiar with AFA policy regarding homosexuality I for one would not like to see your right to have to your say taken away. By that regard however, we should all have the right to voice our point of view in a mature and respectful manner in the public square. Unfortunately that's not always the case these days, with more and more legislation popping up seemingly aimed at stopping the 'Christian' POV.

However while I dont wish to speak for Bill Muehlenburg I can see that while you want him to 'stop campaigning against the legal recognition of same sex relatiships' this is merely his response to the gay attempt to force their will in the matter on the wider population. As you guys have brought it out into the public why should the rest of us not comment about it? If we feel that such a recognition is a threat in some way to society in general then we would be remiss in remaining silent. Personally though, while I dont have any problem with people who want to enter into same-sex partnerships I am concerned when such things are promoted as 'good' and 'right' and 'normal' because in my opinion they aren't (no offense).
The other point that comes to mind is the simple mechanics of the whole situation, the term 'marriage' has always meant somthing in particular. In this case the union of a man and a woman recognised by the community in which they live. This is not exclusivley Christian or western but has always been recognised as somthing special in the life of a society. The other point that seems obvious to me is that marriage is not somthing that is defined by society but rather it is something that is 'recognised' by it. I see it as a case of marriage (as the basis of the natural family unit) defining society and not the other way around. So even if your relationship did get awarded the title of 'marriage' I'm afraid it wouldn't make it so. If it walks like a duck, and looks like a duck but barks like a dog....it's probably not a duck. :-)

I'm glad you had a 'happy' upbringing as you implied but it was not my intention (as stated) to bring up the question of 'causes' as it seems irrelevant to the conversation at hand. However I have noted that until the whole 'gay movement' became political it was almost unanamously held by proffesionals working in the field that homosexuality was pathological in the emotional development of the person in question. But we cant mention that in our enlightened times now can we?

Oh dear, it does seem this argument will go on forever. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to counter all the ridiculous assertions about homosexuality. My personal favourite was the claim that male homosexuals have hundreds of sexual partners each year - I wish! It seems that Christian fundamentalists make the lives of gays out to be much more interesting than they really are. And please, if we are only 1% of the population stop worrying about us.

It's been fun debating but I don't have time to undermine civilisation as we know it (first point on my copy of the Gay Agenda) and answer these postings so I'll have to leave it at that. But do take a lesson from Mr Muehlenberg - cite your references.

Whew! Just been thru this list of posts and wondered when DavidJS would run outr of steam/time/patience. Possibly being unkind to DrGreg, David and Bill seem to be the only participants with their heads screwed on.

A quick summary of my views:
Is heterosexual marriage a constant in human cultures? Almost definitely yes.
Is homosexuality a constant in human cultures? Almost definitely yes.
Is heterosexual union necessary for the continuity of human cultures? Of course it bloody is!
Do homosexual pseudo-parents make worse parents in terms of the stability of their children? Too early to tell.
Leaving kids aside, is there moral/ethical justification to deny homosexual partners the legal and "entitlement" rights associated with marriage? Can't see how there can be in a society based on "Christian" ethics.
See y'all :-)

David JS, leaving us so soon in the debate!

The whole idea of marriage is that you desire to enter into a lifelong relationship exclusively with one person, and you publicly state it. However, by your own words (above) you admit to wishing you had hundreds of sexual partners each year – ( “…. hundreds of sexual partners each year – I wish!” )
If you do not have the desire to enter into a monogamous relationship for life, then I can only assume that your efforts to gain equal rights for gays in marriage is purely a political stunt!

You ask me to cite references…

In the Journal of the American Medical Assoc., an article entitled “San Francisco Men’s Health Study”, stated that homosexuals have significantly more partners on average than heterosexuals do. (vol 3 no. 257, Jan 16 1987, p 323).

In 1978 a huge study of homosexual men by the Kinsey Institute found that 28% had sexual encounters with 1,000 or more males. 79% said more than half their sexual partners were strangers. 1% said they had fewer than 5 partners in a lifetime. (Charles Silverstein and Edmund White, “Joy of Gay Sex”, New York: Crown Pub., 1977, cited in Cal Thomas, “Behaviour Does Not Deserve Special Protection,” The Los Angeles Times, Feb 4, 1993).

Bell and Weinberg found that the average white homosexual male has 550 different sexual partners. (“Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women”, 1978)

The Journal of Sex Research found that homosexual men had a mean lifetime number 251 partners ((Paul Van de Ven, et al., “A Comparative demographic and sexual profile of older homosexually active men”, Journal of Sex Research, 34, 1997, p354.)

In May 2003, a study of homosexual men in Amsterdam found that the length of steady partnerships was 1.5 years (Maria Xiridou et al, “The Contribution of steady and casual partnerships in the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam”, AIDS, vol. 17, no. 7, May 2003, pp 1029-1038, p. 1031)

“Sydney Men and Sexual Health” report (a joint research project between depts within Macquarie Uni, Uni of NSW and the AIDS Council of NSW) found that 26% of homosexual men had 21-100 partners in a lifetime; nearly 41% had 101-1000 partners; 17% had over 1000 partners. (Garrett Prestage, et. Al., “Sydney Men and Sexual Health”, Sydney: HIC AIDS & Society Publications, 1995 Report C.2, p. 34.)

Numerous surveys have proven that heterosexual spouses are much more faithful and monogamous compared to homosexual couples. E.g. In “Sex in America: A Definitive Survey” 75% of husbands and 90% of wives claim never to have had extramarital sex. 83% of heterosexual couples were monogamous, but less than 2% of homosexual couples were monogamous. (Robert Michael, et. al., “Sex in America: A Definitive Survey” Boston: Brown, Little & Company, 1994, pp 101-107)

An extensive survey in the Journal of Sex Research cited that 77% of married men and 88% of married women had been faithful to their spouses. (Michael Wiederman, “Extramarital Sex: Prevalence and correlates in a national survey”, Journal of Sex Research, 34, 1997, p170.)

…to cite but a few. That is why the natural family is the most healthy and stable environment in which to bring up kids!!