Alan
I have a question for you.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that homosexuality has NO bad effects either to the homosexuals themselves or to society. It's still against the bible though. Would you still oppose it even if no one was harmed?

To those who oppose legal rights for same sex couples, please explain yourselves ( apologies Pauline).

*All I hear is marriage is only between a man and a woman.

It is about legal equity for same sex couples, as opposite sex couples enjoy, with the all the same legal safeguards.

Having Worked in a domestic violence unit, it would appear marriage is'nt quite like what we think it should be. Adding the divorce figures, it makes for a pretty weak argument.

* It is about having children, creating a family.

It may atonish some people, gay men and lesbians can procreate, they choose not too, like many same sex couples choose not too.

* Its unchristian and against the bibles teaching.

Where does it say that? Surely is that not someones interpretation from the Old Testament to the new testament. A sort of theological "Spin".

To Citizen, who takes the usual put down of homosexuals, which we are use to, as we experience it everyday of our lives. A quote.

The Bible does contain six admonitions concerning homosexuals and homosexual activity. However it also contains 362 admonitions concerning heterosexuals and heterosexual activity:

Now, this doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals as much as homosexuals. It just means heterosexuals need a great deal more supervision.

The biggest problem with all those "but the Bible says" people is that they are applying a modern concept to a 2000 year old text. Homosexuality as understood today simply didn't exist way back when.

In researching this contentious issue, I stumbled across an excellent website which deals with just that problem:
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/9409.htm

The article contains many different opinions from those of various religious persuasions, and their views on the Bible as pertaining to homosexuality.

A highly recommended read for those on all sides of the debate.

And thank you Kipp for that quote - I've been looking for it!

Perhaps we should go the other way. the way that marriage is breaking down in this day and age we should not be preventing gay marriage, we should instead be thinking about the entire concept of marriage as useless.

Marriage is no longer marriage - the word has lost its meaning. Government either has an interest in regulating relationships, in terms of laws and registering ceremonies, or it hasn't.

Perhaps it hasn't.

After all, what is wrong with polygamy, so long as all parties are consenting? Taking one more step, so long as the couple does not breed with the risk of genetic defect, what is wrong legitimising with a sexual relationship between two adult siblings? I am not encouraging this idea, but if 'marriage' is to be permitted or encouraged for gays, why not for siblings, after all, who is being hurt? Especially if they 'love' each other.

Either marriage remains 'marriage' or it doesn't. Modern marriage is just a temporary union anyway, there is nothing special about it, so lets enable gays to be married, and anyone else who wants to, in any combination of consenting adults.

By the way, what has love got to do with marriage anyway? - love is not traditionally part of marriage, so why drag that particular emotional defect into a discussion about the basic unit of society.

To talk about making same sex relationships equal before the law as normal relationships is nonsense, because the relationships themselves are different. Nichol's statement about apartheid is rubbish. Homosexual relationships will always be separate to normal ones whether inside or outside the law.

Several posters attempt to distinguish homosexual relationships from other perverse behaviours by claiming that they are between two rational consenting adults. This is incorrect. A homosexual relationship is not rational, it is a result of a behavioural disorder. People with behavioural disorders need help, not a law.

Rob
quote "To talk about making same sex relationships equal before the law as normal relationships is nonsense, because the relationships themselves are different." EVERY relationship is different Rob. That's NO reason to discriminate against them.

Now let's look at your next wierd assertion.
Quote "A homosexual relationship is not rational, it is a result of a behavioural disorder. People with behavioural disorders need help, not a law." Totally wrong I'm afraid. The international psychiatric associations no longer recognise homosexuality as a disorder. In fact they assert that they were WRONG to EVER classify it as such. Afraid your assertions are groundless rob.

here's a question though. Most fundies offer the baseless claim that homosexuality is a disorder. Do dogs, lizards, chimpanzees & rams suffer from the same disorder rob? All of these species have members which prefer homosexual acts. Indeed endocrine studies have shown that homosexuality has the same basic origin as heterosexuality. It is an orientation which is formed in the foetus' brain before birth. Sorry rob but your assertions are groundless. Never mind...you can go back to your true reason. i.e. you KNOW that homosexuals are bad because you just don't like them. Isn't that the true reason?