At the heart of this debate, is the question of what kind of society we want. Personally, I would like the ideal family arrangement to be given a higher social standing than any alternative.

It is a fact that children with a mother and father are better off than those who do not. Marriage, has evolved as an institution to protect the children. Unfortunately, recent years has seen marriage has been degraded to a point where it is now commonly a temporary arrangement, rather than a life-long commitment. Gay marriage or civil unions denigrate the ideal family arrangement even further.

Homosexuals cannot claim persecution or oppression in todays society. Prominent homosexuals in Australian society prove they are able to take part in society, like any heterosexual person can. So all this talk about "fairness", "equal rights" and "discrimination" is laughable.

To top it off, homosexual relationships statistically don't last anyway compared to heterosexual relationships. So lets divorce ourselves from this issue!

Oh c'mon Boaz, this is like talking to log. You go back to the same lines again and again like a parrot on crack. You refuse leave it alone. What is wrong with you? Are you really so full of fear?

Most gay people I know are not Christian and never want to be. Most Christians I know are not gay and never want to be. This is Civil Union in the legal system, not marraige under the eyes of God in Church. So be it.

You talk the talk but do you walk the walk?

Why can't you just see that two consenting adults of the same gender commit their love to each other, well away from your life and your belief systems. No one wants you to accept them. No one wants you to like them. No one is rubbing it in your face. Rubbing and shoving is your job as a bible basher.

They just want you to bloody well stop bullying them with your bible bashing and leave them alone! You just don't get it, and you never will.

Your statements about lesbians and strap-ons are stupid. Mate, get a life, and stop being offensive to women. Lesbians don't all want penises. Even if they did, what does this have to do with you and your life?

There are many expressions of love, many of which don't even look sexual at all. Sometimes it is a suttle as a shoulder to cry on. A warm and friendly face welcoming you home. Someone affirming them that in the face of an unfair would, someone loves them.

Gay people do NOT want sex with their pets, children, or their Ikea furniture either, you really do have an X rated imagination.

Civil Union does not set a precidence for perversion, it sets a precidence for commitment and love in the legal system, well away from the domain of the Christian Church, or any religious institution. It is really the opposite to the picture that you paint.

Mate, live and let live. That is all.

I am not sure why gay activists are so desperate for same sex relationships to be recognised legally. Perhaps it is the financial benefits that come with marriage, as if the double incomes no kids is not enough! Oh yes some have children with another partner, paving the way for polygamous relationships to be recognised.

Surely if a same sex relationship was so strong, legal recognition would make no difference to the relationship. Many just have their own commitment ceremony and live happily ever after.

BD
You might like to reconsider your choice of texts to quote.
you quoted from Romans 1: 21, 26-27.

The only problem is according to this text Paul is actually arguing that homosexuality is punishment for not worshipping God properly! Homosexuals are born that way. So if these versus are correct then the baby must have been worshipping God improperly in the womb. LMAO.

Paul was an ill informed 1st century theologian. The ideas he presents in this verse are just nonsense & should be treated accordingly.

Is that the best you've got BD? Boy that is a sorry argument. I thought you'd read & understood scripture. My mistake.

Davo
Every argument you've put forward can also be used against heterosexual marriage. After all if men & women truely love each other why do THEY need to have their relationships recognised. Especially the childless ones that work. Double income & no kids. They're obviously in it for the money. :D
Of course you'd say that's not true. Those people love each other & want to declare that love openly. So do gays & lesbians.

As to the discrimination they recieve. How about the fact that no matter how long two men or women have lived together if one is dying in hospital their partner will not be allowed to see them. Does that strike you as fair? I have a few thousand other examples of other forms of discrimination if you don't like that one.

Morality cannot be based on theistic religion because those religions require moral beliefs as part of their own foundation.

At the heart of Christianity lies the belief that by his death and resurrection, Jesus saves us from our sin. But Christians have disputed for centuries as to how the crucifixion does this. Three main views dominate the debate.

There is the substitution view, which says that there has to be a punishment for our wrongdoing, there is a price that must (i.e. ought to) be paid. What Jesus does is to take our punishment for us.

Then there is the exemplary view. On this view, Jesus’ life and death give us an example of how we should live. We are saved from sinning because we learn how to live without it.

Third, there is the sacrificial view. Roughly, this says that Jesus took on himself our sin, and when he died, our sin died with him.

The unresolved debate between these views is of necessity carried on with the use of moral views. For example, it is objected to the substitution view that is presupposes a defective retributive view of punishment. That presupposition implies that you could pay the price first, and then commit a wrong. In other words, the presupposition makes a moral mistake.

I can go on, if people would like to learn some theology, and see the argument completed.

At the heart of Judaism lies the belief that God called Israel to be his special people. But there was a dispute about the meaning of that call, which was not settled until the first century AD. The issue was, did God call Israel for its own sake, of for the sake of the whole of human kind.

It was finally agreed that it was for the sake of everybody, because the first view did not make moral sense—it attributed an immorality to God.

At the heart of Islam lies the belief that Allah has given us a law to be obeyed. But there is a dispute about how that law is to be interpreted. Take the precept that a thief must have his hand cut off. A liberal view holds that at the time the Kor’an was being written, theft could cost a person’s life. If you steal someone’s water while you are crossing a desert, you kill him. As a response to murder, it is, for its time, a relatively merciful punishment. But today, theft rarely causes death. Accordingly, the law should not be taken as implying that thieves today should have the offending hand cut off.

Moral judgement is thus required to make sense of all three religions. Morality cannot be based on any of them, for they are based (in part) on moral reasoning.

Morality in fact does not need to be based on anything outside itself; and logically it cannot be. (Why do you Christians thinks that God is good or that you ought to obey him?) It does not follow that morality is relative to a society or a culture—indeed, those views are demonstrable nonsense. It does not follow that morality is relative to an individual either—but it is not so easy to show that that view is wrong.

I think relativism is wrong, all the same. But in any case, individual moral relativism is compatible with moral argument being conclusive.

So let us have no more of this talk about morality being based on religion. It is a mistake. Instead, let’s argue the issues properly.