The author notes: "opposing gay marriage actually strengthens this challenge to marriage, since unless conservatives also support enforced celibacy they are conceding that casual sex and cohabitation are acceptable."

That casual sex and cohabitation are (or appear to be) acceptable, in practice, is due to the relatively recent legal invention of 'de facto' marriages/relationships and widespread adoption of pre-marital sex/cohabitation, and the complete breakdown in female behaviour (ladettes!). Clearly, whilst tolerant of people's choices, conservatives would generally not be supportive of such choices.

The general societal 'advantages' of marriage - supported mothers, stable parental couples, children from a single biological father, property rights etc, are essentially as much to do with affirmative public policy and social contract, rather than rights.

Marriage has purpose in providing a basis for a special status that recognises the duties associated with the development of families and a more civilised/stable community.

The amelioration of very negative judgemental approaches associated with terms like 'bastard child', 'slut' and 'homosexual' etc, has seen modern society's desire to be non-offensive overtake the very real need to be instructive and rewarding beneficial choices.

That we are now more likely to applaud someone denigrating a smoker or carbon excessive individual means that we have not removed taboos merely changed them.

I see little benefit in encouraging people to make poor lifestyle choices, and government policy and state laws shouldn't either.

Promiscuous casual sex and repeated irresponsible cohabitation should not be acceptable on a number of levels - health, economic, social - but, we have that freedom, however, I don't think we have such liberties in redefining lawful marriage for additional groups such homosexuals, siblings or polygamists.

So creating another 'lawful' class alongside 'de facto partner' may be a solution, except for the 'political agenda statement' that appears to be part of the issue - as many other legal arrangements can be made to cover all but some adoption/IVF issues. see part 2...

Oooooh, David JS, you cheeky devil!

But now I want to share something that the guys who are so vehement in their homophobia are in no position to refute. In fact, given their feelings, its impossible for them even to comment:

I have found that the best men in my life - the ones who absolutely adore women and are in turn adored by women, the ones who know how to pleasure a woman and love to give pleasure, the real men - are never in the slightest bit threatened by homosexuality, and they never make any differences between my homosexual friends of both genders or my straight ones.

It seems to me there is a reason why most (please note the qualifier "most" there: I am not casting aspersions or making "ad homium" attacks here)opposition to gays comes from boorish ocker-types: the three-minute men. You know, the ones who gave rise to those jokes like "The Aussie males version of foreplay is the question "Are you awake"?

It is also noticable that the majority see the word "Homosexual" referring to men only, and are quite happy to indulge in the old three-some daydream. (In fact the "homo" in the word homosexual comes from the Greek homo meaning "same", not the Latin homo meaning "man").

So my own feeling has always been that the people who protest the loudest are the people who struggle with their own sexuality: especially those who are not quite up to par in the bedroom themselves.

Any other women found this?

"That we are now more likely to applaud someone denigrating a smoker or carbon excessive individual means that we have not removed taboos merely changed them."

Thanks to science, our understanding of the world is constantly changing, and indeed improving. We now have solid scientific evidence of the harm caused by smoking, or by excessive quantities of greenhouse gases. The evidence, however, that the nuclear family is the optimal arrangement for the raising of children is, to say the least, thin on the ground. This is hardly surprising, given it's a rather recent invention anyway, and certainly not representative of the social structures that existed for 99% of our evolutionary existence.

However, I certainly agree that humans also have an innate tendency to latch on "taboos" that are handed down by those in authority, even when there is little scientific basis behind them: e.g. the idea that illegal recreational drugs (cocaine, cannabis, ectasy) are somehow more harmful on average than legal ones such as alcohol or nicotine*.
The best we can hope for is to continually strive to improve levels of education and understanding of the power of the scientific method to better distill genuine knowledge about the world, especially among those in authority who make decisions that influence public opinion on various such matters.

* For instance, the idea of walking through the streets watching people shoot themselves up with needles makes me thoroughly uncomfortably. And yet I can walk by people smoking cigarettes, doing themselves (and importantly, others around them) potentially far more damage, without thinking much of it at all. This is obviously somewhat irrational, but an important clue into the way that the human brain works: we've had the association of "shooting up" with overdosing or being part of the criminal underworld firmly imprinted in our minds, and this is far more powerful an effect than tables of statistics proving that nicotine is actually more harmful than many injected drugs.

part 2.

By creating the fiction that monogamous, heterosexual marriage can be equated to any and all relationships, I don't see the utility of limiting the perception of one couples circumstances by undermining anothers.

Sure, it all about perception; I want to 'protect' my version of marriage, others want to protect their "relationship rights" too.

Let's just get rid of any advantages in law that marriage currently provides and then we can see just how much popular support will be engendered by our social engineers!

Years ago, such requests would not have mattered as, logically, non-reproductive relationships would, well, not reproduce. The advent of scientific solutions to get around natural processes and demographic outcomes has created a very new, perhaps not so level, playing field.

Anyway, if they want the legal protections (relationship rights) as consenting adults, but, without parental rights and we pick another term, I can't see any problems, but, is this about the needs of the adults or our society's children?

If marriage is made to look easy/disposable/anything goes, then it won't be long until families are seen as mere fashion items - perhaps this has already happened in more affluent societies already!

As I once read: children are economically burdensome, culturally optional and technologically preventable. Why would you want more than one (or two)? The family of old is already passing at so many levels, so where do conservatives make a last line in the sand?

Perhaps on this one...

Yep.Rainer is right. I always like stirring the pot.Lots of venom and passion.There should always be conflict and argument when venturing into unknown territory.No one on this planet when moving from traditional concepts that in the past have ensured communal survival,should be assured of an easy passage.The gays or heteros are not above satire or criticism.

Just as a deviation from the present topic,see my general discussion entitled,"Quick ,get the Silver Out Dr Hg".If you have amalgams still in you mouth,consider the consequences.This topic has serious health consequences for all of us.

Arjay, you stated: "This topic has serious health consequences for all of us."

Please elaborate, I am at a complete loss as to what you mean by this statement. The topic is about gay relations not drinking water.