J Bennett, so you don't have any evidence that gay parenting is harmfull to kids. You assume so and on that basis wish to not let them have the legal protections available to hetrosexual couples.

We allow pretty much anybody else to have the care of children if they happen to have the biological equipment to MYO or happen to live with someone who has it unless they have been guilty of some pretty serious breaches in the care of children already. If protection of children was to be managed by risk categories rather than on a case by case basis there are plenty of other groupings where our efforts would be better placed.

I don't wish to place children unecessarily at risk but nothing I've seen so far has given me any reason to believe that is the case. If anything it may be the reverse.

I suspect that homosexual couples would come out statistically better than hetrosexual couples in regard to the effort put into the care of children because very few will find themselves with unplanned children. The children they have in their care will be for the most part wanted and planned for.

As others have pointed out the children issue is somewhat off topic other than it is a possible flow on from legal recognition of homosexual relationships.

R0bert

mjpb, it's spelled "p-i-l-l-o-w" actually.

“Society routinely limits freedoms in regard to behaviours”

Robert, in the case of same-sex couples society doesn’t limit the behaviours. Sexual behaviour in private between consenting adults is completely legitimate, and is not restricted by the state. In contrast, smoking behaviour is restricted because non-consenting individuals are adversely affected by it.

Smokers do not enjoy fewer civil rights than non-smokers. They pay the same taxes, they are permitted to form the same relationships, and they have access to all the same state benefits as non-smokers. Smokers’ children are not disadvantaged because the state denies their parents access to family benefits.

Smokers have the same civil rights as non-smokers. Same-sex couples have fewer civil rights than opposite-sex couples.

As I’ve said, this discussion is not about behaviour, it’s about civil rights. The opinions of certain misguided individuals about sexual behaviour have no relevance here.

jpw2040,
You have not grasped what marriage is about. It is about the bonding of two persons of the opposite sex to engage in legitimate sexual behaviours. Otherwise the relationship is for convenience and they abstain from sex for various reasons. The State recognises their marriage and their sexual union. With that sexual union are responsibilities if children are involved, and benifits from the State for children. Marriage is totally about behaviour, that is what the term means. To join two into one sanctioned union.

To quote jpw2040, "this discussion is not about behaviour, it’s about civil rights. The opinions of certain misguided individuals about sexual behaviour have no relevance here."

You constantly talk about civil rights - but civil rights also carries with it socially accepted responsibilities. The marriage vows identify some of those primary responsibilities. It is not your civil right to be married to another of the same sex. Engageing sexually with one of the same sex is not and never has been approved of by the State as marriage.

Agreements between to persons on shared property and wills etc does not need a marriage contract. It seems to me the only purpose you have is to be socially accepted for your sexual behaviours.

wizofaus, said, "chimpanzees, .. are generally very comfortable with homosexual activity, and engage in it frequently".

Yes they also lick bums, eat excreta, and throw it around with gay abandon.

jpw2040, I'm undecided if I've failed to make my point adequately or if we just see the world differently on this issue. I'd rather spend my efforts here discussing the main issue of legal recognition for homosexual relationships than stuck in a debate with someone I mostly agree with so having said what I can I'll leave this alone unless I have a change of thinking about it (or find something else particularly comment worthy).

R0bert

jpw2040, are you saying that if CJ cuts and pastes, that's OK but if I do, I'm a chimp? How one-sided. I thought your lot believed in equality. Or are heteros not included in your agenda? I was giving examples. Don't you get that?

Nice one Philo, 'Yes they also lick bums, eat excreta, and throw it around with gay abandon'. (More cut and paste for jpw2040's dismay)