I just wanted to ask a question, if anyone would be so kind as to answer it...

I am not being a smart-alec, I am seriously wondering... what is the point of a homosexual marriage??? Lets put aside for a moment most of societies views, put aside the Christian heritage of this country, put aside any religious beliefs, put it all aside for a moment. What is the point in any marriage? Obviously there is the element of love and commitment, then you have that people get lonely, they need companionship the list goes on and on. But if we forget how we have all been taught in our society for a moment and think of us like just humans on this earth. Isnt marriage foundationally for the reproduction of life? Is not the point of marriage primarily that we will 'go forth and multiply'? So then what is the point of a marriage that cannot reproduce life? Obviously there is a lot more to marriage than what I have mentioned, I am not that naieve, but if you take off your hat and all your beliefs and prejudices, etc and look at it logically in relation to the world around us, it doesnt make sense to me. I understand that a homosexual person may love another homosexual person, whether that is 'right', 'wrong', 'normal', or 'abnormal', is not the topic here. But when we consider the future of this planet and the population here, what would be the point in us teaming off people who will stop the produce line? I dont mean to sound rude at all and I dont mean to make it sound so 'blah' but do you get what I mean?

Hey Grace, Sorry it took so long for my reply. May I say you write really well, I say that in sincerity. I love english and literature.

Anyway, you appear to be more educated than me... so I dont want to argue with you. You seem to be older than me so I wish to respect you as my elder (I am not saying your old ok, dont get offended) but you do come accross very strong in your posts, that is why I "jumped to Bill's defense". I understand what it is to be skeptical however, in your post it came accross as personal, thats why I said that. Thanks for clarifying.

I have read and considered your arguement. I dont know why Bill noted about the PhD thingy in his article. I am not close with him, and would not know why he would write that. But I dont see the big deal. I mean why did I write in my first post my age? Was that because I had some secret agenda? Was it because I wanted to try and show that I know what I am on about because I am resonably young? Or was it simply because I wanted the people reading my post to know a little about me while they read my opinion? Maybe I just wrote it. Maybe there was no hidden agenda or manipulative spin. Maybe that is the same with Bill. In the end does it matter? Knowing someone's position etc to me does not matter... but one still can mention it...I know many people who never finished high school and yet have more wisdom, common sense, knowledge and life experience than some others who have studied many years. Some people are lawyers, Pastors, lecturers, etc... but in the end everyone has an opinion and whether Bill mentioned what he does or not, and whatever he studies I think it's not really relevant?!? I dont know why you have made it such an issue when it is not really the topic at hand? His mentioning it was his perogative, as was everyone else's who has posted things here... Can I just ask - Would my opinion become void if you knew I was on drugs when I was younger? Would my opinion become more accepted if you knew I was a lawyer or a doctor? What about Bill? Does your opinion change if you know where or what he specifically teaches? What if he taught art? Would that cause his standing and research to become nullified? Why is that so important, why is it an issue?

Bill brings a good case, I would listen even if he were a homeless hobo (no offence Bill...just an example) regardless of your opinion on his research, he has done his research.

Status, like race or sexuality does not make you any less of a person or better a person, nor make your opinion count more or less.

I am a 30 year old female and I would like to lend all my support to Bill. Congratulations on speaking up and defending the family. Keep up the good work. Oh and grace, why not just address Bill as 'Mr' instead of 'Herr'??

Cat, let me try to say what I mean just once more. If you read Peter Baume's essay called "Families: a mix of good and bad", posted online on 13 December, you will see that his by-line tells us that he is a professor of community medecine at the University of New South Wales and Chancellor of the Australian National University. His essay is worth your attention because he has spent a lifetime studying the subject, dealing with troubled families as a medical professional, legislating for improvements in accordance with his own experience, and having his conclusions openly questioned and argued over by his peers. His academic qualifications are transparent, verifiable, and unassailable, and give weight to his authority to speak on the subject. (And yes, I agree with his point of view on families, that they are a "mixed grill", and we should be tolerant of diversity. This fits with my philosophy that diversity makes us strong. But that is beside the point.)

The point is Peter's essay is based on respectable research and broad experience, and his standing in the wider commmunity is recognised by his status as professor and chancellor. That is, you can be reasonably confident he is not spinning you some yarn for propaganda purposes, and if you disagree with him, then you can have a sensible argument on the evidence.

On the other hand, Bill's essay is a biased and irresponsible presentation of shoddy "evidence" in support of a pre-existing and irrational prejudice against homosexuals. This does not amount to "research" or a "good case" in any sense, and would probably result in a big fat F at any decent university, at the very least for not canvassing contrary points of view, not to mention quoting extensively from very obscure (but revealing) sources. And yet, Bill tells us that he is an academic of sorts (student and lecturer), presumably to persuade you Cat, that has the authority of the university community behind him, and that his "research" is worth your consideration.

This does matter Cat, in a forum like this where the educated and the uneducated, as well as bigots and frauds, compete for your attention. We should know who is talking at us, and be ever vigilant. Question everything, including the authority of the authors. And no, I do not think your comments on Bill's essay are unimportant just because you are young etc. I congratulate you for being so up-front and honest, I just want Bill to do the same.

I am a 28-year old professional female. I also would like to express my support for Bill's article. Women in my generation have seen too much divorce, dysfunction and lonely, damaged children to believe that there's no ideal family structure. Or to believe that marriage is simply some social construct. Or to think that relationships exist solely for the sake of the happiness of the two involved. Or that discrimination is always bad (sometimes we have to discriminate to support good things).

It's a shame that some have used this forum as one for personal vitriolic attacks and name-calling. Not so for David JS, who has been a perfect gentleman, although I disagree fundamentally with him.

The gay community clearly has a very different concept of marriage from that which has been held by the rest of the population, throughout time and across cultures. E.g. A psychologist in LA who counsels gay men said this…”With all the talk of legalizing marriage for gays, there’s an assumption in the minds of most people (read gays) I talk to, that only rarely does that legalization include monogamy” (Lambda Report, July 1994, p.11). An extensive study of homosexual male couples in San Diego showed that every couple who had been together more than five years had outside sexual partners as a ‘normal’ part of their relationship (“The Homosexualisation of America”, p.187). The homosexual press reflects this attitude very strongly.

So if the gay community wishes to seek recognition for their ‘pairing’, in a democratic country they have a right to do so. But please, don’t call it ‘marriage’. For, as one contributor above said “If it walks like a duck, and looks like a duck but barks like a dog....it's probably not a duck.”

This is getting really silly with all this talk about ducks. So what if some male homosexual couples are promiscuous, so are some married male heterosexuals, probably in roughly similar numbers if you are prepared to face up to reality. And lets be honest, every heterosexual male who breaks his marriage vows is in many cases doing it with a heterosexual female who is also breaking her marriage vows. The “problem” in heterosexual marriages is that when a child results, the cuckolded husband may not be any the wiser.

The institution of heterosexual marriage has one primary social purpose, to keep women from having sex with men other than their husbands, so as to minimise the number of extra-marital children born. This is so that men don’t “waste” their time and money raising other men’s children, and to preserve their estates within their own hereditary line. In pre-historical evolutionary times, when we lived in consanguinous groups and shared the common wealth of the land, this was not an issue. Women probably had much the same freedoms and powers as men, and children were a shared responsibility.

Life-long monogamy is not a human biological imperative. It might be what you mostly see around you now, on the surface, but that is not because it is genetically imprinted. Logic would suggest (it takes two to tango) that women are probably as promiscuous as men, despite the otherwise fond imaginings of many men. Its just that women are better at keeping it a secret, mostly for fear of the brutal consequences.

That gays want to enjoy the ties that bind in marriage might seem a bit illogical in this scheme of things, because they generally have no genetic investment in children. However, where conservative governments insist on discriminating economically against gay couples, and religious groups insist on deriding their love and commitment to each other, then gays will continue to insist on joining the mainstream in marriage. More power to them. When the day comes as it surely will (despite Bills’ best efforts), when gay marriage is not a political issue, then perhaps we can move on to the more important things in life.