An excellent paper I have found for all those in the "but the Bible/God says..." camp:

http://www.mccanchorage.com/PDFs/morepreciouslove.pdf

And to address the paedophilia issue:

1. Almost all paedophiles are male.
2. The vast majority self-identify as heterosexual.
3. Paedophilia is an attraction to / preference for children. Children. Notice that is a non-gender specific word. Children.
4. Regardless of the acts involved, paedophilia does not have heterosexual and homosexual components depending upon the genders of those involved - it comes down to access. Priests have access to alter boys, fathers have access to sons and daughters, etc.
5. Paedophilia has as much in common with heterosexuality as it does with homosexuality, which is to say nothing. Notice the "sexuality" part. Important bit that. Look it up.

Allowing heterosexuals to marry (and divorce) at will hasn't opened the floodgates to polygamy, paedophilia and people wanting to marry their pet horse - why would allowing homosexuals cause such things?

Take away the religious bias and the ignorance and the whole issue boils down to "it's ours, and you can't have it so there".

I am a gay man with many heterosexual friends. One couple was married recently and I was the witness; I therefore signed the document authorising and recognising their marriage under law. I hope to sign many more friends' marriage certificates, but I also hope to ask one of them to sign mine one day.

A few suggestions for those arguing for same-sex unions. First, do not bother to use the term marriage. It is inflammatory and moves us off the real point faster than anything else. Civil union is by far the better term, as it anchors the discussion in the secular (marriage is really a religious practice) and reminds us this is a matter of citizens' rights. Second, this is not an argument about the (moral) legitimacy of homosexuality. The people who raise issues of deviance and the like are never going to shift their opinions, and it is better to steer clear of this wholly irrelevant tangent.

May be going out on a limb here…. I think one of the much understated reasons that people are against the legitimisation of homosexuality is that they think anal sex is yucky.

Good on you Redneck for at least explicitly stating, “The human rectum is a one way valve. Forcefully inserting objects into it from the outside in causes serious damage which proctologists are delegated to repair. Homosexuality is therefore demonstrably unnatural.”. There used to be laws against anal sex – even male to female within marriage.

However there is a logical problem with this. Heterosexual people can have male to female anal sex. Does that make heterosexual people unnatural? Some homosexual people might never have anal sex – does that make them natural? Does this human rectum one way valve apply to the oesophagus as well – do you think oral sex is unnatural? I think you have confused homosexuality with anal sex. So if you want to crusade against anal sex do so but realise that it is not limited to homosexuals.

Martin I agree that Civil Union is a much better term. I think heterosexuals should be able to have a civil union too if they want to.

Much debate centres on what rights & responsibilities you can have simply by being married. Why not simply allocate rights & responsibilities to individuals and then it won’t matter what relationship you are in eg. no dependent spouse allowance for taxpayers but their spouse can claim unemployment benefits? For parents of children allocate an allowance 50% to the father and 50% to the mother

Hamlet

A few corrections:

1) Read my last post CAREFULLY. I argued that homosexuality is natural NOT marriage. Something is natural if it is found in nature. Marriage is NOT found in nature. It merely exists. Try reading my posts before commenting next time ok?

2) You then argue that marriage arose out of heterosexual reproduction. Wrong! To quote the Oxford Classical Dictionary "marriage in the ancient world was as much a matter of power & wealth as it was the continuance of the family lineage"
You only have to look at the custom of the dowry to realise that.

3) If marriage were solely about reproduction how are we to explain the acceptance of same sex unions throught history. In ancient Greece, Rome, Africa & among many American Amerindian tribes to name just a few examples.
http://www.bidstrup.com/phobiahistory.htm

Indeed if marriage arose out of heterosexual reproduction then the question must be asked which type of marriage?
• polygamy?
• polygyny?
• polyandry?
• endogamy?
• exogamy?
• common law marriage?
• monogamy?

Sorry Hamlet but your arguments are based on a mistaken ideas concerning historical practices.

Martin I wish you luck finding the right guy. Saint, Pedant, Sancho, Unravelled all I can say is brilliant arguments guys. I'm off. If you lot are staying to battle it out I wish you well.

We as a society cannot tolerate any law/legislation or practice that discriminates against any individual or group. A question must be asked by those who are supporters of such laws. ie:If by our acceptance, or apathy, a government becomes bolder in its legislative endeavours how do we stop it when that government turns its attention to us?
Throughout history the establishment of totalitarian governments have relied on the bulk of the populace to remain onside or at least apathetic in relation to discriminatory laws that don't directly affect them. It is only later that the general population finds itself subject to those same or slightly modified laws and freedom is lost.
I freely admit in an Australian context this result is unlikely, but given experiences in other nations it is worthwhile to remember that power changes culture.

Bosk

I was talking about largely pre-historical, and definitely pre-classical practises.

I would suggest that you read Jared Diamond's 'The Third Chimpanzee: The Evolution and Future of the Human Animal' and his lighter but still serious ' Why is Sex Fun? The Evolution of Human Sexuality', both of which look at human sexuality, and relationship issues from a biological-evolutionary / sociological perspective.

The human species has had 20,000 generations of family and clan based child raising and relationships, and maybe 150 generations in the 'historical' period. Those 20,000 generations still influence the way we see ourselves, and our relationships, today.