mjpb: "If you are trying to wrap it up I don't think it will work. All the usual suspects are kicking in and there is 11 pages already"

Quite so. The rational and unbigoted forum members have had our say, which the homophobic Christians refuse to accept. Legal recognition of same sex relationships in Australia is inevitable, and I agree that it will occur within a few years.

Suck eggs, fundies. I for one have better things to do than play any more word games with homophobic frootloops on this thread.

I hope your children grow up to be gay :)

My, my, I go away for a couple of days and this thread has generated a few gems.

CJ, I certainly wouldn't give you an inch, no matter how much you would like it. This thread has been hijacked by homosexual activists who see anyone not of the same opinion as 'homophobe' or 'bigot'.
Being a heterosexual. I see these same people as 'heterophobic bigots'.

Philo, 'The fact homosexuals are fertile males capable of producing children, says that their physiology is OK it is their mind that is screwed up.' That is so right. Top of the class.

Runner, 'No one could possibly argue that sodomy is natural. The diseases that go with it is enough proof.' Also top of the class.

BD, 'As soon as you bring children into it... you bring the REST of us into it... you are seeking to re-shape society in terms of behavior which many of us find disgusting.'. Too true.

dnicholson, 'And driving cars, typing at computers, or using mobile phones *is* natural?', put on the dunce's hat. Also, 'there are already tens of thousands of families all around the world where children are brought up by two parents of the same sex. There is even a documentary "That's a family" that interviews children from some of these families, and those children are universally well-adjusted and comfortable with their family arrangements' proves nothing. Tarzan was brought up by apes and proceeded to swing through the tree and thump his chest. Who knows how these poor children will turn out?

A lot of posters here equate homosexuality to the 'why can't a man love a man or a woman love a woman?' mantra. There's a difference. There is the love of a man for a brother, which can also apply to close friends in a platonic, non-physical sense. Same goes for women and sisterly love.

Jack, who on this thread do you believe qualifies as a homosexual activist? I personally find the idea of having sex with another man offputting in the extreme. But I could say the same about eating at McDonald's, or taking botox injections, or getting a tattoo.
None of them infringe on the rights of the others, all involve informed consent, so there is no justification for making them illegal.

Demostrate to me that the institute of marriage in Denmark, where civil gay unions have been commonplace for 17 years, is any weaker than it is here, then I'll accept that perhaps there is room for caution.

JBennett - even if your homosexual depression statistics are true, my point remains that if those opposing homosexual civil unions are truly doing it for this reason (instead of just using this as something to support their dislike of homosexuals) then they have indeed shot themselves in the foot.

There's a simple question - do you believe homosexuality is wired in, or is it a choice?

Unless you believe the latter, which is dismissed by all but a few hardcore conservatives, then the only conclusion is that there is no choice - so it can't be changed.
Therefore, the only logical conclusion that can be drawn, is that denying these people the rights for same sex civil unions can only be more psychologically damaging.

You still haven't refuted that, so I can only conclude that genuine concern for the psychological welfare of homosexuals isn't your primary concern at all. The only alternative is to try and claim it is a choice, and you're on a losing wicket there.

Jack - I already refuted Runner and Philo's points. Your 'top of the class' comments don't actually address the issue.

Honestly. I really do wish conservatives weren't so hung up on telling people of legal age and who are capable of informed consent, who can and can't have sex.

Wizofaus as nailed it and I heartily endorse his last comment. I'd like to see the rebuttal for that one.

"RObert, when you start down that slippery path of tweaking the bible here and there where it doesn’t suit a non-believer, where does it end?"

Oh, probably something like we have today, where the church for 100's of years tweaked the bible to suit themselves. Digging up a few references for another thread show me how vast the differences between modern versions can be, with just the choice of the wording of a verse - ie the spin that the translator puts on it. Plus the bible is but the interpretation of man, so there is good arguement that it SHOULD be updated where man's understanding of a particular point or event has modernised.

The prime function of marriage is to forge a partnership to raise children. The secondary function is legitimise a relationship.

A news article on the ABC last week stated that in Tasmania for the first time more children were born out of wedlock than in. This would indicate that the prime function of wedlock is losing its relevance.

The secondary function would seem to have become more important recently. If this is the case, then gay marriage is becoming as legitimate as any other form.