Keith

First you call my examples of bigotry toward homosexuals as "red herrings", last time I checked this was a thread concerning equal human rights for gays/lesbians.

And then you come out with this little treat:

"My and the churches definitions and assignations includes the possibility of procreation. How can that occur between two homosexuals."

You and your churches definition of marriage is only applicable to you and your church. You do not hold sway over the rest of the universe.

Question, what do you do about those disobedient heterosexuals in your church who marry and do not procreate, either because they are unable or they simply don't want children?

We live in 2009 yet we have learnt nothing that went before,when a person that was recogonised as not a part of the majority, they where rejected and hounded.

Can any of those today who deny the rights, to people who are not a part of the majority, please explain in a secular sense why?

Love comes in many forms, though I feel those who deny the recognition of love, appear to be missing love in their lives.

Woulfe said - I'm tempted to ask for more detail about what "reasonable and logical" sexual behaviour might entail, but on second thoughts ...

You must be feeling uncomfortable if you have to resort to sarcasm.

No one ever said that "reasonable and logical" sexual behaviour is a pre-requisite for marriage but it is a pre-requisite for equality. You say that homosexuals are entitled to marriage based on equality with heterosexuals. We need more than just an opinion that they are equal – we need some proof. Proof is important in making decisions to change laws.

What exactly do we mean by equality in this case? Let’s say both groups are equal in every respect except for the availability of proof that their behaviour is sometimes logical and reasonable. Homosexuals fall short by just that much so they are not equal. You may not think logic and reason in human behaviour is important but it underpins all our laws and important decisions. If certain behaviour and the presumptions based on it cannot be proven to be logical and reasonable then it is quite possible that it is unreasonable and maybe quite neurotic. This can be presumed a possibility in all cases of homosexual behaviour and in many cases of heterosexual behaviour. The only case where it can be proved logical at all is when two people set out to procreate.

The whole question of whether governments should have any say in defining relationships such as marriage is another issue. For better or worse the situation is as it is. If you want legislators to include homosexuals in marriage rights, as they stand, on the basis of equality then you need to prove equality in the only area where is seems to fall short and it is a very important area.

It is not self-evident that homosexuality is equally rational with heterosexuality. If it is not then the suspicion remains that it is irrational and perhaps neurotic and governments should not pander to the claims of groups who are even possibly irrational.

Fractlle

There you go again.

This discussion isn't about equal rights it's about defining marriage so as to include homosexuals.

I don't want my definition of marriage to hold sway over the rest of the population.
I've never ever maintained that position. I think you should withdraw that exaggerated allegation or ... show proof.

I just want the rest of the population to treat my definition with equal status as a definition that includes homosexual behaviour. I don't want such a homosexual marriage definition to hold sway over all the universe and especially over those who want their definition or assignations to include a possibility of procreation. ie I don't want to see people who include procreation to be discriminated against.

Quite simple and exactly as the homosexual lobby want for themselves.

Are you deliberately misreading what I've written?

Fascinating to see entrenched homophobia in action.

phanto: << You must be feeling uncomfortable if you have to resort to sarcasm. >>

Exasperated, more likely.

keith: << I don't want my definition of marriage to hold sway over the rest of the population. >>

Bulldust. You want to exclude homosexuals from legal marriage. Isn't that "holding sway" over those homosexuals in the "rest of the population" who want to legally marry?

<< Are you deliberately misreading what I've written? >>

Disingenuous and obtuse. Closet homophobic to boot. Not worth arguing with.

Ciao.

Those who have read the article we're discussing know that this discussion most definitely is about equality. The article begins with the Labor Party's claim that it has

"…always stood for equality. Throughout our party’s history successive
Labor governments have sought to achieve this by helping people
overcome disadvantages based on social class, gender, sexuality,
disability, religion, cultural background and racial prejudice. We have
always pursued the fair go, tolerance and respect. We oppose all
attempts to divide Australians by pandering to prejudice."

The article goes on to show that (a) anything less than same-sex marriage is not equality, and (b) one after another, western democracies are moving towards complete equality for same-sex couples.

Those who have read the article also know that this discussion most certainly is not about behaviour. Equality doesn't come with a behaviour manual, sexual or otherwise, and there is no basis for denying human rights to individuals on the basis of perfectly legal and acceptable actions.

Sexual behaviour is irrelevant in this discussion. Would anyone who wants to talk about sex please take it somewhere else.