I don't think you can leave out the fact that because many heterosexual men (myself among them) have such a viscerally unplesant reaction to the idea of two males engaging in sexual intercourse, they assume that the strength of this reaction is somehow indicative of the objective immorality of men engaging in intercourse.

It requires a certain clarity of mind to separate oneself from this emotional reaction and accept that there is no harm in allowing other other informed adults to engage in consensual private activities (and indeed, considerable harm comes from attempting to disallow it).

Marriage is a slightly more complex argument, but Arjay, like others here, can't even seem to get past the first hurdle of accepting that a personal distaste for the sexual behaviour of others, however strong, is not reasonable grounds for determining morality.

Wizofaus,it has nothing to do with my personal tastes.Everyone on this topic has made it personal.Celvia"Arjay is a repressed homosexual."Another personal attack.It is about the survival of the species and homosexuality won't do it.

Homosexuals are presently happily co-existing in our society,but now they want to be the leaders in social engineering since their educated socio-economic status is disproportional to the reality of numerical percentages.It is all about power.They'll push the boundaries because they can.Now they get all uppity with name calling and character assination,just because they cannot get their own way.Well two yr olds reflect the same pre-disposition to immaturity.Expect a monumental fight!

Arjay, all homosexuals want is equal rights. that's all. Why should a group of people be discriminated against just because of their sexual preference?
They 'push' the boundaries because these unfair boundaries should not be in place to start with.

You say "It is about the survival of the species and homosexuality won't do it."
Anti-abortionists use the same argument to tell women how they should behave: they want to force women to give birth because of 'our survival'. Yes it all boils down to power and control.

Homophobes use the amusing population argument and claim that homosexuality is a 'wastage of sperm' (every sperm is sacred :)) argument.
Oh dear- as if heterosexual males haven't wasted millions of sperm.

Yes! We should be concerned with population numbers!
Even though homosexuality has always existed, women have always looked for and often found ways to control their fertility, and heterosexual men have always wasted sperm... voila! we managed to increase the population to over 6 billion!

It would be more logic to say that we need MORE sperm wasters to save our species because life may well become unsustainable if we keep breeding like this.
We need less, not more people on earth to be able to survive as a species.

Arjay,

<<It is about the survival of the species and homosexuality won't do it. >>

Not necessarily.

It has been found that, apparently, younger siblings are more likely to be homosexual.

The advantage that this would provide, is that there would be some in the pack (heard, or whatever the group is referred to, depending on what species you're talking about), that would spend time taking care of the young, rather than competing with the other siblings (born first) for mating partners.

It could/would be like a backup system, rather than wasting life on 'sibling rivalry' that came about from the competition for mates.

Now, of course I cannot prove this, but it's food for thought, and it shows that nature may not be as simple as it seems. It would certainly make evolutionary sense in certain species though, and it would prove to be a good survival technique as well.

One example of this was the Meerkat they named “Shakespeare” in the show 'Meerkat Manor'. This particular male showed no interest in mating and spent his time looking after the young in the mob.

That's not to say that he was necessarily homosexual. But it's examples like these that could potentially support the theory behind Homosexuality in nature - which is more common than you'd think.

Arjay, why would I expect a monumental fight? I expect Australia to peacefully follow in the the footsteps of nations such as Denmark (where gay unions have been legal for almost *20* years ago now), the Netherlands (where gay marriage has been legal for 7 years), Canada, etc. etc.

What makes Australia different to every other western developed nation (other than the U.S.) that is gradually moving towards full acceptance of gay marriage?

I have the solution.We shall call "Gay Marriage", "Garriage" then everybody will be happy.

Instead of having the movie "Meet the Fockers" With Gay Lord Focker,we could have "Meet the Buggers" with Straight Lord Bugger.Straight Lord has a gay father and one day he brings home a woman with intentions of marriage.However his father only believes in Garriage.Straight Lord's father brings in the Gay Police to sort out his son's deviant behaviour.

Who would like to add to this satire?