Have any of the gay-bashers on this forum ever met any gay people, or got to know them? What on earth makes a sexual union with a person of the same sex a "perversion"? As Pedant notes, "anal sex is not solely performed by homosexuals". Nor is cunnilingus or fellatio. Nor is mutual masturbation or just plain old kissing, cuddling and holding each other in bed.

Homosexual couples can do pretty much the same thing as other people. They can become fathers or mothers and the gay parents that I know are raising children in loving environments. What on earth is wrong with them having civil unions?

Bosk

All knowledge started with writing? So all archaeologists studying settlement pattens of pre-literate societies are simply wasting their time? The civilisations of the Inca and Aztec were not really civilizations because they did not have writing and therefore we should only look at what others wrote about them? (The Maya had a form or writing that started independently around 600bc)

The ancient iron age settlements of Europe, who did not use writing are also worthwhile simply dismissing?

And writing didn't just start in Mesopotamia. It actually started independently in Sumeria around 3000bc, and then independently again in China around 1300bc. I use 'BC' instead of the more post-modern and fanciful 'BCE' because I recognise that 'BCE' is only a fancy way of trying to exclude Christ from history.

Study of preliterate settlements reveal such interesting things as housing ideally suited to the equivalent of the modern 'family' unit, with occupancy of around 4 to 8 people and meeting houses of similar concept to modern religious ones, that have equivalents in more recent non-literate societies. (See the first episode of Simon Sharma's A History of Britain if you cannot be bothered reading about it.)

Of course these communities could have been full of homosexual people happily bonking and excluding breeders, but as most of these sites indicate that they had been settled for more than one generation it is hard to see how breeding did not take place.

Homosexuality (an invented term from the 1890s by the way - before then there was only behaviour, not identification by sexual preference) MAY have existed in pre-literate societies, but children were still produced by the standard method, and parents still made efforts to make sure that their DNA continued.

As I have said many times before - if you want to have homosexual 'marriage' then go for it: but by trying to justify it against evolutionary-anthropological-archaeological evidence you are only cheapening it. I am not against homosexual 'marriage', after all, to quote 'Jack McCoy' quoting someone else, "if gays want to live in misery like the rest of us then let them."

All,
These arguments are rarely a case of wowsers versus liberals
We are all wowsers to varying degrees
"Now, we are merely haggling over the price." .

A couple of generations ago we would have been arguing over the rights & wrongs of marrying a divorcée. Today homosexuals are all but establishment and there are new fringe dwellers seeking acceptance.

Some of the most moralistic persons I have met been nouvo –establishment types, a case of having :
‘once attains the upmost round.
He then unto the ladder turns his back,
Looks in the clouds, scorning the base degrees
By which he did ascend.’

Each era can cite current thinking/morality to justify its stand –smug in the belief they have the right balance between civil liberties & morality.

Bosk,
I stick by what I said-to divorce it from our hobby horse:
If you have an "exclusive" preference for chocolate ice-cream.
Can you do any thing else but "consistently" choose chocolate ice-cream?
(Perhaps the guy’s non-English ancestry is the explanation).

There is also an interesting comment from Richard Dawkins (The Extended Phenotype) which may have relevance:
"Homosexuality is of course, a problem for Darwinians only if there is a genetic component to the difference between homosexual & heterosexual individuals. While the evidence is controversial (Weinrich 1976), lets assume for the sake of argument that this is the case...Even if there are genes which, in today's environment, produce a homosexual phenotype, this does not mean that in another environment, say that of our Pleistocene ancestors , they would have the same phenotypic effect. A gene for homosexuality in our modern environment might have been a gene for something entirely different in the Pleistocene"

To All, Homo and Hetro. Please read this article and then come back here and tell me again why we should allow gay marriages.

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet7.html

Why can’t you be happy just living together? Why do you need to make a mockery out of marriage?

And as for Rex: “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?”
To be blunt. I believe it is wrong and it is put in our face to much. I do not advertise my sexual acts to the world

Jane, I don't much like the Mardi Gras, the ads on public toilet walls nor do I personally find male homosexual acts at all appealing. I'd rather not have that stuff in my face either.

Discussion of allowing homosexual unions to have legal status does not seem to be about shoving homosexual sex acts in my face any more than my previous marriage was an attempt to exhibit my sex acts to the friends and family who gathered to celebrate the occasion. People were no doubt aware that sexual activity would take place but advertising that was not the intent of getting married.

Homosexuals are able to engage in sexual activity regardless of marital status (and as history shows regadless of the legality of their actions). What this is about is the impact that laws which stop them having a legally recognised union have on those who do wish to live as a couple.

If the author or the article you referenced is using survey results legitimately then very few homosexuals will take up this opportunity so you have little to fear.

Why should I support this - in part because it is just, in others ways for the same reasons that I support religous freedoms, the alternative is worse. While I suspect that monothiestic religious belief is not healthy or in the best interests of participants banning it seems to present a greater threat to the well being of society. As long as the practice is kept behind closed doors between consenting adults then it's not my business.

I might also note that I've yet to hear of a homosexual threatening me with eternal torment unless I change teams. I don't know of any homosexual schools set up with a clear goal of winning children to homosexuality. I'm not aware of homosexuals advocating to censor access to religious books for those who enjoy that kind of thing. I have never had a pair of homosexuals knock on my door on Saturday morning to convince me I should change orientation.

R0bert

Right Jane, you're on. I was loathe to visit that link you posted, solely because it contained the word "family". Past experience has taught me that most organisations which use the word "family" in their title are rabidly "Christian"* and rabidly anti-homosexual.

So, here I am coming back to tell you why gays marriages should be allowed.

Marriage is a civic democratic right. It is not religious. Yes, people get married in church, but they still have to sign a marriage licence. A couple could get married in a dozen churches, but their union would not become legally binding until they signed the licence.

Australia is a secular society. Church and state are separate. Regardless of how much the churches get their panties into a knot over this issue, from a religious standpoint it is none of their business. Their rights to protest gay marriage end at refusing to perform them, which is fine by me.

Australia has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as chartered by the UN. Article 26 states:

All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

On this basis alone, Australia as a society cannot allow the continued discrimination against homosexuals with regards to legal recognition of their relationships.

I personally don't care if the word "marriage" is used or not. If it will get the religious zealots to shut up, "civil union" is fine, or any other like phrase. This issue is not about religion, it is not about tradition (traditions change) - it is about fairness, equality and providing legal protection and obligation to all [consenting, human, adult] couples in a relationship.

* "Christian" is used to denote those who seem to consider themselves thus, then proceed to act in a way which is anything but.