In regard to the nuclear family, I certainly don't wish to make people abandon it. The nuclear family is not as traditional as one might think. In the past the extended family or the tribe took responsibility for raising children. Those duties were not just left to the immediate parents. Nonetheless most people appear to want heterosexual marriage. And a small minority want same-sex marriage - or least the opportunity. Both can co-exist. Indeed anti-gay bigots argue that gays only make up 1 percent of the population. If that is the case, nobody should worry about same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriages could not possibly make a jot of difference to way most people conduct their relationships - unless you believe homosexuality is innately more attractive than heterosexuality and by legalising same-sex marriage millions of heterosexuals would suddenly become gay.

Aslan hauls out the tired old "slippery slope" argument stating that same-sex marriage will lead to a myriad of marriage types. Where's the evidence for this? The onus is not on me to produce evidence. I'm simply articulating the case for same-sex marriage ALONG SIDE OF (not INSTEAD OF) opposite sex marriage. If other people wish to put the case for other forms of marriage they are free to do so. I don't wish to speak for them (whoever "they" maybe).

Deuc said in response to me: "By that logic, there is no human right to be free from discrimination on the basis of race or sex either."

Agreed - which means that the UDHR is totally inadequate for determining "human rights".

So, again I ask (because you continue to refuse to answer): On what basis can we determine what is and is not a human right? Or, more specifically, why should "gay marriage" be regarded as a human right?

You say you don't want to get into a debate about human rights, but this is precisely where the debate must take place since gay activists claim that being able to marry whoever you want regardless of sex is a basic human right.

I referred to the UDHR because it is generally and widely accepted as the standard for the definition of human rights. If you think this is inadequate (as you seem to) then what is your alternative?

BTW, how do you know the UDHR is not a definitive source for human rights? You're either begging the question, or you have some other standard which you're not telling us.

You ask: "Why should I come up with an argument for something that I and no one else here has claimed to support? I think it is only reasonable that the burden should lie on those who support legal discrimination, if they cannot come up with some rational basis for their position then the discrimination should be removed."

I don't think so! You can't shift the burden that easily. Gay marriage has never been allowed in the past, and we don't have it now. It is not recognised in any international covenant and it is not recognised under Australian law. If you want to invent gay marriage and give it social status and legal standing, then the burden lies with you to prove that gay marriages are for all intents and purposes exactly the same as heterosexual marriages and therefore deserving of all the rights and privileges that come with heterosexual marriage.

It is true that same-sex marriage has not been recognised legally in the past. However, gay relationships now do have considerable legal standing under state legislation that they didn't have before. Indeed the decriminalisation of homosexual acts in all states and territories has been a big step forward in regard to the human rights of gays. Btw, new human rights issues emerge quite frequently. The human rights of transsexuals would have been unknown in 1945. Now it is recognised that transsexuals a) exist b) have human rights and c) have particular rights that can't be applied to others but should be conferred - such as the right to change one's birth certificate to match their preferred gender identity. In other words, human rights are not static.

Aslan appears to be asking gay activists to prove a case for something that cannot actually be proved unless it is in existence in the first place. This is not a useful argument. At any rate, gay writers such as Jonathon Rauch and Andrew Sullivan have put the case. Not matter how many times gay activists put the case there will be those who will say that your argument isn't good enough. So, it's not a line of debate I usually enter into. It's a bit like asking women to prove why they should have the vote in times when they weren't allowed to vote.

Gay marriages are not the same as other marriages. They are between partners of the same sex. But all that would take is a simple adjustment to the 1961 Commonwealth Marriages Act. Or have another piece of legislation (maybe called the Civil Unions Act - that term has been touted about) which would confer on same-sex partners identical rights and responsibilities as the Commonwealth Marriages Act does for opposite sex partners.

"So, again I ask (because you continue to refuse to answer): On what basis can we determine what is and is not a human right? Or, more specifically, why should 'gay marriage' be regarded as a human right?"
This is my point: you don't accept human rights, you don't have any way to determine human rights and yet you state that it isn't a violation of human rights.

If one considers the right to marry to be a human right, then that's why its a breach of human rights. Others may simply consider large scale discrimination without just cause to be a violation of human rights.

It's inadequate because it does not fully define each right, because (as DavidJS said) new issues continually arise and because it contains general clauses. For instance, article 2 contains:
"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."

That is a general clause, sexual orientation fits nicely into "other status", as would other things not listed in the IDHR. I do not necessarily disagree with IDHR, but it is incomplete.

I haven't detailed any reason for homosexual marriage here, but there are some pretty obvious ones (equality, legal presumptions, encouraging families, uniform and simpler laws etc.) and others that you could find. But I have yet to find any decent arguments for a ban, despite much searching.

"[P]rove that gay marriages are for all intents and purposes exactly the same as heterosexual marriages..."
The law requires very little for a marriage to be valid except the formalities of the act. Just an intention by both parties to live in a matrimonial relationship, as considered by the parties, for some period of time. The courts don't care about the nature of that relationship or any other intentions or purposes. Why? Because there is far too much variation among hetero relationships! More than the difference between them and gay relationships. But that won't satisfy the homophobes.

Deuc says: "you don't accept human rights, you don't have any way to determine human rights and yet you state that it isn't a violation of human rights."

In presenting my argument, I am assuming for the sake of argument, that something called human rights exist. What I believe is irrelevant. It is gay activists who claim that prohibition of gay marriage is a violation of human rights yet they have no way of determining what is an is not a human right. What I pointed out was that even the generally accepted international covenants on human rights make no such provisions for gay marriage, and therefore, by these generally accepted standards of humans rights there is no clear violation.

Deuc says: "If one considers the right to marry to be a human right, then that's why its a breach of human rights."

And if one rejects the idea that marriage is a human right then it isn't violation. Indeed, marriage as a right is absurd. Can a plain looking girl who becomes a spinster because she never attracted the attention of a man claim that her rights have been violated?

Deuc says: "sexual orientation fits nicely into "other status""

Yes, it could fit there - but then again it might not! How do we decide whether "other status" was meant to cover this? Perhaps it also covers pederasty?

Deuc says he has "yet to find any decent arguments for a ban, despite much searching".

You obviously haven't looked very hard. Post your email (register a temporary one if necessary) and I'll send you pages of reasons.

Deuc says: "But that won't satisfy the homophobes"

Like all gay activists, you can't resist name-calling. How wonderfully "tolerant" of you...

"You obviously haven't looked very hard. Post your email (register a temporary one if necessary) and I'll send you pages of reasons."
Haven't found any *decent* ones. Why don't you just post them here?

Those who fear/hate homosexuals would not accept what I said, how is that namecalling?