Well... this thread's certainly got pretty haywire. To bring things back to the central points:

It seems to me, there are two core arguments here.

The first is that same sex couples should be able to have equal financial rights when it comes to issues such as dealing with government departments, next of kin entitlements, superannuation, insurance and so forth.

As it stands, there is a huge disparity between heterosexual and homosexual couples, and same sex civil unions aren't accepted throughout the country.

I've yet to see any convincing arguments against this first half, nor have I really seen anyone speaking against them. It seems to me that it's the adoption issue that is the more contentious subject.

So before I get to the adoption issue, if there are any posters here still strenuously arguing against civil unions for these purposes, can they articulate their reasons? If we can at least put this half to bed, we can focus on the second issue of adoption.

On the adoption issue, I see plenty of people saying how bad it must be for same sex couples to adopt kids, but given that adopting couples have to jump through far more hoops and get scrutised by child services, I don't quite believe it.

In order for those who wish to deny same sex couples these rights to put forward a genuine argument, I'd like to see some kind of corroborating evidence that shows children of same sex couples have more difficulties.
As it stands, I've seen many posters pointing out there isn't anything to back this point and until I see evidence to the contrary, I believe them.

Where are the studies. Where are the examples. Where are the case studies, news reports and lobby groups who aren't affiliated with religious organisations or a conservative agenda. If you want to persuade me, give me something.

mjbp, I didn't mean to imply that article was a summary of the thoughts of the most "intelligent minds on the planet who work in the field of AI and robotics", just an example of the sort of thinking that's already out there.

And the whole point is that for humans to want to marry robots, they would no longer be "inanimate".

wizofaus, truly your best ever when you reply 'you go argue with some of the most intelligent minds on the planet who work in the field of AI and robotics' to my questioning your conviction that humans and robots will be allowed to marry.

How will you cope if the robots don't have an anus?

Some robots are really quite attractive. C3PO, for example. So posh and shiny!

J Bennett, "It is great to see you thinking for yourself for the relevance of Philos comments. You should have done that originally."

I believe that I have thought for myself all the way through this discussion and previous ones.

Just where have I suggested that Philo's comments are irrelevant?
Seriously wrong, yes and possibly some parts are irrelevant but if any of you were able to present a viable case that allowing homosexual activity was more harmfull to society than the approach of trying to force homosexuals into being straight or celibate then I'd be very concerned about moves to expand legal acceptance.

I'd rather have you doing you best to put your case in a forum such as this so we can thrash it out and you can show how little you really have. Mostly a distaste for anal sex (I share that) and a bunch of unsubstantiated claims and or religious objections.

If considering the idea of someone elses sexual activity distasteful was grounds for not recognising a relationship legally then not many people would be married.

Support for allowing the opposing viewpoint to be put does not mean that the opposing viewpoint is a good one.

None of you have managed to present a case with any real merit to oppose legal recognition and protections being available to gay couples.

You have not managed to substantiate claims of a risk to society or children by allowing legal recognition of homosexuals relationships.

In my view, give it your best and make it abundantly clear to all how little you really have to back your case.

The case for ongoing harm to homosexuals while they don't have the same legal protections in relationships has been well put and in my view the harm to others when we try and force homosexuals to be straight is also quite clear.

It's well past time that we removed discriminations such as this from our legal system.

R0bert

“But we certainly did not think of, or engage in the disgusting practice of anal sex.” - Philo

No, Philo not at all. You have me absolutely convinced. Just browsing your comments it seems anal sex has NEVER once entered your hole -- er -- I meant, mind in any of its minute detail. Uh-uh. Oh no! Not one eeny-weeny-teeny-tight little hole –- er -- bit.

Sorry. I did not mean to write hole. Not at all. How did that did that SLIP in!?