I agree with much of what you say, Cornflower.
But why should it be up to heterosexuals to tell homosexuals how they may be allowed to express their love for one another?
If only a few want to be legally married, why should that few be prevented?
Why are some heterosexuals so insecure about their own relationships that they feel their marriages will be somehow undermined if gays are allowed to ceremonially and legally declare their partnership?

ena

I do not know what the solution is but the ramifications of same sex marriage could have more downside than upside for gays and their lifestyles. Who wants the lack of trust and argy bargy that goes on with heterosexual divorce. Maybe same sex marriage is more relevant where large assets are concerned, but there again there are other solutions and 'marriage' doesn't always crystallise desired outcomes.

I'd just say to gays be careful what you wish for.

Men and women alike now spend more time as sexually mature adults outside of marriage than ever before, and some number of them live together in unreal or mock marriages of one kind or another. The social status of homosexuals is no better and no worse than that of anyone else who lives in an unmarried state.

What do I as a taxpayer owe to gay people’s lives or relationships or needs? Well the truth is many people have many needs that are not provided for by law, by government, or by society at large and for good reason.

To my homosexual friend I say if a lifelong monogamous relationship is what you want I wish you that happiness. But as our lives as citizens are concerned the durability of your relationship and its economic incentives/disincentives are matters of complete indifference. There are economic disincentives to hangliding, or raising pedigree poodles. In choosing to conduct your life as you have every right to do, you have stepped out of the area of shared social concern. Marriage is how the world exists, how you as a homosexual and myself came to be, how we are connected backward in time, through the generations.

Allison doesn't mention its utterly logical for polygamy or polyamory rights to follow gay rights. After all, if traditional marriage is defined as the union of (1) two people of (2) opposite sex, and if, as advocates of gay marriage insist, the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one’s autonomous choices in love, then the first requirement–the number restriction (two and only two)–is a similarly arbitrary, discriminatory denial of individual choice.

Posit a union of, say, three or four gay women all deeply devoted to each other. If two men or two women deserve the same privileges as married couples on what grounds would society reject these three or four their claims for all kinds of protections and privileges ordinarily accorded to marriage?

What about the ‘love’ of a man for an adolescent boy – a brother for his sister?

That’s a lot of falsehoods and fallacies crammed into 350 words, Martin. In reverse order:

1. The old trick of conflating homosexuality with pedophilia has been soundly discredited. It’s a straw man fallacy, and because it attempts to associate law-abiding citizens with universally-condemned criminal behaviour, it is one of the most offensive “arguments” fired at same-sex attracted people: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html

2. Lynn Allison’s article is about same-sex couples, not polygamous relationships of various gender combinations. Associating polygamy with recognition of the rights of same-sex couples is a classic instance of the slippery slope fallacy: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html

3. It may be acceptable to claim that heterosexual marriage is a common default relationship (“Marriage is how the world exists”) but extrapolating from this that other relationship models are unacceptable, unworthy or even less valued, is an example of a sweeping generalisation, the fallacy of accident: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/accident.html

However the worst and most insidious statements here are those based on lies:

(a) “The social status of homosexuals is no better and no worse than that of anyone else who lives in an unmarried state.”

Homosexuals’ social status is considerably worse, because we are specifically denied access to marriage. When we have equal rights, then it may be possible to argue that we also have equal social status. Until then, this statement is a blatant falsehood.

(b) “In choosing to conduct your life as you have every right to do, you have stepped out of the area of shared social concern.” Granted, there are a few homosexuals who say they chose to express their sexuality with same-sex partners. However by far the majority don’t experience it as a choice, any more than heterosexuals claim that they chose heterosexuality. Importantly, the American Psychological Association, with the backing of years of research and clinical experience, states unequivocally that sexuality is not a choice: http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html#choice

Same-sex attracted people have not stepped out of any areas of shared social concern. We are placed there by people who wish to disadvantage us.

These same people show little respect for truth or logic when seeking to maintain that disadvantage.

(1)Where did I equate homosexuality with pederasty?

(2)Slippery slope? These signatories http://www.beyondmarriage.org/signatories.html to this statement http://www.beyondmarriage.org/ disagree with you. They believe its a valid argument! In their statement, they advocate a "new vision for securing governmental and private institutional recognition of diverse kinds of partnerships, households, kinship relationships and families." This new vision, they hope, will move the nation "beyond the narrow confines of marriage politics" as they exist today.

(3)Our entire civilization is unanimous that homosexual unions are less valuable for the reasons given - fertility, generation and the protection of female sexuality. To repeat, our legal system’s protection for families is evidence of that unanimity.

(a)Those with a history of same sex attraction aren’t denied the right to marry and people who thought they were gay get married and have children a hundred times more often than we are told.

Alternatively, “we hear virtually nothing about this today, but historically one of the basic ways of dealing with same-sex attraction has been sublimation--not repression, sublimation. The three most common forms of gold into which this base metal was transformed have been deep abiding friendship, great art, and personal sanctity. All three of these options are still open to everyone.” Eve Tushnet (lesbian)

Sexual expression like everything else must be made subject to the will, I wouldn’t if I were you swallow the gay lobby line that sexuality is “identity and destiny”.

(b)As for the APA it removed homosexuality from its official listing of mental illnesses in its DSM of Psychiatric disorders until further research could be done. Which hasn’t occurred. This psychiatrist http://www.narth.com/docs/spitzer2.html was "the" instrumental figure in the decision doesn’t believe in the gay lobby’s sexual determinism.
If social pressures forced psychiatrists to label homosexuality an illness until 1973 are they less influenced by societal pressures today?

Marriage should be privileged and we should delight in that, not feel resentful of those in heterosexual marriages. Marriage has enough trouble already (mainly from heterosexuals) without everyman and his dog (almost literally) trying to empty it of meaning.

(1) The feigned innocence is very cute. What was “What about the ‘love’ of a man for an adolescent boy” if not a reference to pedophilia?

(2) Just carry that line of argument forward a few steps to see how absurd it is. A few people believe an argument is valid, therefore it must be a valid argument.

(3) Another lie. Our entire civilisation is not unanimous that homosexual unions are less valuable.

(a) In Australia, same-sex attracted people are denied the right to marry their lifetime partner.

(b) Robert Spitzer has stated many times that his research has been misrepresented by NARTH http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/15/AR2005081501022_pf.html You are aware of this, Martin, because it has been pointed out to you before http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4664#49865

I begin to wonder why you continue to propagate this lie.

It should be noted here that Lynn Allison’s article wasn’t about marriage, it was about removal of the 58 (soon to be 59) instances of federal discrimination against same-sex couples.

Martin, you say, “Sexual expression like everything else must be made subject to the will.” Putting aside the problems with this claim, the discussion here is not about sex, it’s about the rights of a minority – the only minority in this country which is specifically denied a right.