Jane, anal sex is not solely performed by homosexuals.

Horus re your post 14 June 2006 6:34:33am animals cannot consent to sexual relations or marriage with humans so your question is not an easy hypothetical. If you asked instead: “If I want to have a group marriage with 4 other people and all are consensual, would you countenance such a union being recognized by law with all the trimmings?”

My answer would be no I would not agree to a marriage but yes I would agree to a defined civil union and I think people should have all their rights as individuals (as above) and then people (adults capable of consent) can enter into whatever civil unions they like (eg. may agree to live as grandparent and grandchild even if no relation with associated financial and medical rights/responsibilities) and leave their superannuation to whoever they want and have whoever they want by their bedside in hospital. Before entering these civil unions an agreement would need to be drawn up. This would make lots of extra money for lawyers! I could get rich! (Just kidding)

R0bert, if government allowances for children were given 50% to each parent and each parent paid 50% of their child’s costs this would hopefully help the problem you describe as a child support payer.

Pedant
I'm not entirely clear as to what you mean by animals not being able to consent.
If you mean they haven’t the physical/mental capacity to consent -some animal owners would disagree.
If you mean the current law does not recognise animal consent- aren’t you just repackaging the proposition that under current law marriage is something between a man & a woman?

Bosk,
I also have my doubts about the rams study your previously cited.
I noted your quote:'Roselli said. "We used rams that had CONSISTENTLY shown EXCLUSIVE sexual preference for other rams when they were GIVEN A CHOICE between rams and ewes."
(If you have an exclusive preference, can it be anything but consistent?)
Or is he saying that at times they chose ewes but most times they chose rams (i.e. being bi)?
I suspect the rams were some poor wretches who had a rather warped/traumatised upbringing.
(They weren’t by chance New Zealand rams were they?

What a lot of fuss and obfuscation Alistair Nicholson has created with this article. Of course this was his intent. By division, one can dis-empower one's enemies' thoughts, and hence, conquer.

Should anyone have the stamina to read all of the above posts, one would see that the debate has become extremely personal and it relates to the legitimacy of homosexuality. Most of the posts do not relate to marriage. Some do, but it's just a tiny fraction. Good upon those posters who stayed on track.

But what is displayed above is a shocking realisation that many here among us think that marriage is about them, personally, and them alone. Of course it is NOT!

Marriage is not about men or women, but about children and the responsibility required, by law, by religion, by custom and by culture, to care, nurture and raise them. Marriage is about kids and their well-being. It is NOT about the professed love of adults nor partnership agreements nor contractual financial arrangements - it's about kids.

When homosexuals, and heterosexuals too, stop thinking about their own beings and begin to think about kids, maybe, just maybe, people like Alistair Nicholson - Australian children's worst enemy - might go away. And maybe too, homosexuals will go back into the closet where they belong and do the things they like to do without putting it into everybody's face. Something we could probably all do without.

Yes, I have sex, but I don't turn it into a public political crusade. Neither should homosexuals. It's personal and it's definitely NOT political. It's between me and someone else. One thing is for sure, my sexual habits have absolutley nothing to do with "the best interests of the child" and that's why society created marriage. I do hope Mr Nicholson might read this and I do hope homosexuals will stop flapping off about themselves, their poxy rights and start thinking about the lives and love of kids.

Horus
What a load of garbage.

The article's word's made the meaning perfectly clear. The rams concerned had NO interest at all in ewes, ONLY other rams. Amazing how you can read the words "that had CONSISTENTLY shown EXCLUSIVE sexual preference for other rams" & think it means anything else. May I sugggest that next time before you post you look up the words on Dictionary.com.

When you next make a wild claim you might want to back it up with some evidence...not just another wild assertion, or an argument based on your assertion but EVIDENCE! You know...Like the stuff I'm providing.

Jane
If I understand your argument correctly you are arguing that if someone is using a part of their body in a way that is not normal then they shouldn't be allowed to be married. Why exactly? Lots of people use body parts abnormally. Heterosexuals have anal sex [just as abnormal as homosexual anal sex]. Women wear ear rings [that's abnormal. The ears purpose is to hear NOT hang lumps of metal off].
shall we bar all these people from marriage? No? Then why should we deny it to homosexuals?

What non-human species allegedly do and what allegedly happened in historical/prehistorical times is irrelevant to the question of allowing civil unions for homosexual people.

It is now generally accepted that homosexual people are born that way. I'm sure someone will post some supportive evidence of this if anyone wants to argue the point. Being a homosexual adult and wanting the sexual, emotional and loving company of another homosexual adult is not, in itself, harmful or damaging to society.

When I was a young man and wanted to marry a young woman, no-one asked us if we intended to have sex and have children. This was simply assumed. Sometimes this assumption is wrong, but this does not in itself automatically invalidate a marriage. When much older heterosexual couples marry, it may be generally assumed that they can probably no longer have sex and most certainly can neither have, nor want children. But the marriage would not be opposed on those grounds.

Heterosexual sex can consist of many variations on what may be regarded as normal. Some of these variations can involve body parts not "normally" associated with sex and cannot result in pregnancy. But at least most of us [hopefully] don't dwell on what heterosexuals are doing sexually, so why should we take any particular interest in what homosexual people may or may not be doing?

Even with young people, they can't be "doing it" all the time, can they? For most of us, a satisfactory relationship also includes such things as love, friendship, companionship, working towards mutual goals, support in adversity and the comfortable feeling of growing old together. I can't see things from a homosexual aspect, but, as they are equally human beings, I would think that the same would apply.

For those who are hung up on what others may be doing sexually, I would ask this. What could possibly be the argument against allowing an old homosexual couple to have a civil union? After all, once they're too old for sex, what they would just be seeking is to be united in love, companionship and mutual support.