Kenny says: "No rational reason not to have same sex marraiges" etc

Kenny, sorry, you are outright WRONG... and here are is the reasoning.

1/ Same sex marraige is abnormal. fact.
2/ Homosexual behavior is condemned along with INCEST AND BESTIALITY in the Old Testament.
3/ Homosexual behavior is condemned outright in Romans 1 in the New Testament
4/ Ok.. so your not religious, then forget 2 and 3, and lets jump straight to 4, which is: By the same reasoning you cannot deny Polygamous relationships, multi partner (3some 4some) marraiges.
And this will lead to the total breakdown of our social fabric. NO you say ? Well guess what. I don't plan on giving ANYone the chance to show me I was right, and if that means using my democratic vote and social/political activism on a grand scale to achieve it, then so be it.

JK says

"Interestingly, marriage was also intended as a financial transaction, allowing a husband to buy his wife as property."

JK...I paid 3 buffalo's, $200 and a set of false teeth for Granny for my wife, but I assure you, it is not about 'buying' a person. All you demonstrate with that little outburst is your lack of cultural understanding.

The gay lobby and its spokespeople are simimlar to the "Islamic lobby"
"We are peaceful people, ours is a religion of peace"

"We are loving people with rights, we just want the same as everyone else"

"Man boy sexual relationships can be very positive experiences" NAMBLA
Then they point to various cultural icons to justify this.

and so it goes on.

... all boiling down to "MAKE_IT_UP_AS_YOU_GO" morality and values.

Onya John H. ! and lets never forget, this is a cultural/social war as well as a spiritual one.

A society without a foundation will drift like the shafted Titanic, and have the same outcome.

David. You live by the bible, the majority live by reality. You may find solace of your being in life by living by the bible. With respect its a book, just a book. No ones knows who wrote it, even yourself cannot name the author. I as a person who has loved and adored someone of the same sex as myself, for thirty years of a wonderful life together. I ask you, would you deny us the right of being, of who we are, would you deny us the right of security of our relationship, that you enjoy, without hinderance or comment that we have not. We do not expect you to understand, as you do not understand who wrote that book. We ask you to accept that there are others in life, other than yourself, as your book tells you.Love is never wrong.

A few facts, first. 1. Repeated surveys show that 70% or thereabouts of Australian adults think that homosexual relations between consenting adults should not be made illegal. But there is no connection between what majorities think and what is right, (apart from arguments about democracy that start with the equal significance of all rational beings).
2. There is no connection between what is natural and what is what is morally right. Standing on you head, running on a treadmill, writing comments on a web log are all unnatural. Aggressive reactions to anxiety, the fight or flee response, selfish grabbing and wolfing food are all natural. Yet they are morally wrong.
3. The notion of normality has various senses. If what is meant is actions that follow moral noms, then you cannot show that something is wrong by first showing that it is abnormal, since you need to show that is wrong in order to show that it is abnormal. If abnormality is taken to be a matter of psychological illness, then homosexuality does not qualify as abnormal. If what is normal is a mater of statistics, then we are all abnormal in multiple ways. We are all members of minorities—even you, Leigh. There is no connection between the way the average person happens to be and what ought or ought no to be done.
4. The Bible contains far too many moral, factual and logical blunders for it to be treated as providing a definitive account of morality. St Paul’s position on homosexual activities in Romans contains all three kinds of mistake. To get a decent argument, you can't start with the Bible, since you must first show that the relevant passage is correct.

5. There is no such thing as the Christian view of sexual morality. There are multiple views, and have been for many centuries. St Augustine’s view was not the same as that of St Thomas Aquinas’s. More generally, there is no single New Testament view of morality—the gospels differ from each other and from St Paul.
6. Marriage has not been anything like the same institution over all time, nor over the Christian era. Old Testament views of the obligations of marriage are different from those of the New Testament.
7. The notion that marriage is civil institution is not new. It as adopted by the Lollards, and much later, by the Chartists.

Blah blah blah. 'No rational grounds'? 'Same rights'?

What a load of pap.

Heterosexual marriage is an institution thousands of years old and all we have is a ridiculously tiny minority of people who want to redefine it based on the flawed notion that it is wrong to discriminate on this topic.

The government gives benefits to those who are married for many rational reasons, not because it is a human right. Things like the simple fact that heterosexual marriage is the best way to raise families and so it should be encouraged. This is why everyone has restrictions on who they can and can't marry.

So why all this hoopla if only a tiny minority of homosexuals even want to get married? Why the need to redefine marriage as some pitifully deficient institution as being simply about what someone wants. This is the sort of bankrupt definition that leads logically to polgyamy and stupid notions of people marrying pets, themselves, their children or any other such idiocy. And yes, these are the sort of idiocies we are already seeing in our more 'enlightened' friends overseas.

Let's face it, the only 'rational' grounds for granting governmental benefits of marriage to same sex couples is that people are under the misguided notion that they get to decide what is right and wrong. This moral relativism is irrational nonsense, and so ultimately, it is the misguided people such as John Wilkinson who are being irrational.

Grey
What can I say except what a load of old cobblers.

Marriage is thousands of years old. You are quite correct. So are homosexual marriages. They were known in ancient Greece, ancient Rome, among several tribes in Africa, Australia & among the Amerindians. Their societies weren't destroyed by it. Hmm I wonder why? According to you after they adopted such practices it must have been inevitable.

Next you assert that allowing homosexual marriages will inevitably lead to people marrying dogs. Garbage. Spain allows homosexual marriages, so does Denmark. The rest of western Europe have had homosexual unions recognised by the state for decades. Haven't had a single person marry their dog, cat or even horse. :D Why not Grey? According to you it's innevitable.

Answer: It's no such thing.
But for those who worry about such things here's an easy answer. Keep marriage as a union of a man & a woman.
Civil unions will be defined as the union of consenting adult humans. There you go. No animals need apply, or kids.

Your final point is that this question of homosexual marriages only arose from relativism. Garbage! I'm not a relativist & I'm for it. My motivations are little things like justice & truth. Maybe you've heard of them?