Of course they should. There is absolutely no reason why homosexual people should not be able to form and formalise their relationships on exactly the same legal basis as anybody else.

"Marriage" is a social institution - there is absolutely nothing "natural" about it. The form it takes varies widely across cultures and societies.

Homosexuality, on the other hand, is entirely "natural". People have no more say in their sexual orientation than do any other animals. As far as I'm aware, the natural world abounds with creatures of the same sex getting it on, but there's no such think as animal marriage. Some species tend to pair for life, but they are in the minority and there's no ceremony involved :)

It is only bigots, religious and otherwise, who argue against legal recognition of gay relationships.

CJ - actually, many birds have very intricate "marriage" ceremonies. Albatrosses, Bower birds, etc. etc.

To a large extent the legalities matter little. We already have this perverted lifestyle thrown in our faces and promoted in schools. What is really needed is the truth published as to the health of those practicing this lifestyle and then made public. The lie that people are born that way is no different from the lie that people are born with a liking for kids. No doubt peoples upbring and circumstances has affected peoples thinking but to claim someone is born that way is unscientific and deceitful. Labeling those who oppose their views as bigots is about the best defense for the homosexual industry. The porn industry use the same methods.

Hi wiz - while bird watchers sometimes refer to the often elaborate instinctive mating behaviours of birds as 'ceremonies', 'courtship' and 'rituals', this is a classic example of anthropomorphism. Interestingly, birds are often cited by proponents of monogamy as exemplifying that it is a 'natural' arrangement, but of course this conveneiently ignores the much more common occurrence in nature of rampant promiscuity.

Humans are nothing if not creative in their symbolic relations with the animal world :)

Of course, if marriage ceremonies were simply human versions of animal sexual behaviours, there wouldn't be much of a big deal about them, would there?

Foxy I don't have a detailed answer on the legal issues. From what I have read on the topic there are two main aspects
- The emotional issues associated with being denied the right to marry.
- The practical issues with not having legal recognition as a spouse. I gather that can be quite significant when dealing with serious health issues. Spouse's and next of kin have rights that others don't. I suspect that it would also complicate issues around time of death and at other times when the status of spouse is significant.

I guess you have seen my comments to Boazy on the freedom of religion thread which has been stated so well at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1308#23258 by wizofaus.

R0bert

CJ - sure, for birds it's probably entirely innate and not learned/cultural, but that doesn't mean it's not serving much the same purpose: allowing both partners to "shape each other up", and, at least in some cases, ensuring that the outsiders are aware that the pair are off limits.