Othello Cat,
On any reputable medical and clinical advise on pre-marriage counselling - we are advised to avoid areas surrounding the anus because of high levels of bacteria that can infect a woman's vagina and womb. Thus increasing risks of cervical cancer, infertility, excreated diseases and common thrush etc.

Love making means also being sensitive to the health of your partner. That is why persons who knowingly carry aids who engage in sex with a unsuspecting partner are charged in our society as criminals.

Marriage is a social contract within a society to maintain the health and future of that society. Anal sex and childlessness of that marriage challenges both those principles. Most couples who are childless is because of some physical or health problem and not because of choice. The purpose of marriage is for mutual support, for the procreation of children and their protection.

A good society places these at the height of its values. Homosexuals cannot fulfil such a social contract under any high ideal. Children have to be taken or produced from outside the marriage. A child deserves secure loving contact with both their natural mother and father. Any lesser set up is lesser than good.

Jack sorry mate I hope you didn’t lose your lunch and I hope I haven’t given ideas to "enthusiastically heterosexual" bum boys. Either simian or crazy enough to be a sexual pervert himself so maybe he defends them because he relates to them.

Your right Jw2040 about robots but it is perfectly logical that if marriage changes from man and woman to something else just because of a sexual perversion why not change it to something else just as inappropriate like maybe your human and dog thing.

Robert I know but maybe too little too late. Your problem is you are so sucked in by homos you can’t see the obvious. What you are saying is like saying that their is no reason to think that throwing a kid off a cliff will hurt it unless we do a study where we throw three thousand kids off a cliff and see what happens because someone has convinced you that it is safe. Sorry the opinion of hairdressers or psychologists won’t slice it for me on this. I’ll listen to them on other things but they are too biased on this one. On the general situation TRTL has finally got a better idea then you.

But now that you mention it it does stand to reason that a society that say it is okay to be a sexual pervert will make more people with tendencies head in the wrong direction and the high suicide rate shows that the way things are now isn’t helping the current perverts much. I generally have thought they should be left alone unless for marriage and kids because they don't hurt kids like other sexual perverts but maybe we have to do more. The problem is they say psychiatric problem are hard to treat and obviously harder when some people tell them it is normal and they shouldn’t try to change. There should be at least as much done to help them as searching for every bit of discrimination. Sticking your head up your bum and convincing yourself they are normal obvously isn’t the solution.

Jpw2040,

Sorry but can you please type more slowly. I don't know how chimpanzees are coping but you are making it hard for neanderthals to keep up. Thanks.

I have some more questions...

Have you heard about the saying about glass houses? Are my dark musings about robots as dark as your anal sex with a dog musing and can you explain why anal sex with dogs is more relevant as I can't work that out on my own?

Further, is there anyone who would not have had repeated exposure to the argument that if people with a same sex attraction are able to get married then it opens the floodgates to a variety of couplings? So if everyone has heard that ad nauseum doesn't that mean it has well and truly been planted? If so don't you mean re-planting? How much difference do you think the re-planting would really make? How about you highlighting that? Wouldn't doubling it up be much more effective than a solitary musing?

By contrast, I really don't believe robot marriages are likely and really don't believe putting forward things like that helps Wizofaus's arguments. Thus a literal interpretation seems to carry weight. What do you think?

Thanks.

So, people. Leaving aside the barely relevant issues of chimpanzees or sex with robots and dogs or licking anuses, I take it we can at least agree that if two homosexuals want to have a civil union (outside adoption) that's their business, and it's not up to the government to discriminate against them?

Seeing as no posters have raised objections to this, I'm going to declare that half of the debate closed and say that we're at least agreed on this score.

Good. Even that would be a vast step forward for this country.

On the second issue - if you can stop hurling chimp-related abuse and talking about robots for a minute, can I ask if anyone's actually come up with anything that supports the idea that same sex couples are worse parents?

Similarly, can anyone explain to me why it is that a homosexual couple is different to say, two sisters raising a child?

I know the old 'eww, it's gross, they're having sex' argument gets rolled out, but really, the same can be said for ugly people having sex. We don't particularly want to think about it, but I'm pretty confident in saying most of us acknowledge that it's not our business and they don't have sex in front of children.

This argument is hardly very compelling, if you've got two people with a supportive environment devoted to raising a child I don't see how you can justify banning them.

Like I said, I'd like to see something to back claims against this, because I certainly haven't seen any remotely compelling evidence thus far.

Botheration wrote 'Some robots are really quite attractive. C3PO, for example. So posh and shiny!'
Funnily enough, in Mel Brooks' 'Spaceballs', the C3PO lookalike is gay. Kind of brings two topics of this thread together.

TRTL,
You asked:
"Similarly, can anyone explain to me why it is that a homosexual couple is different to say, two sisters raising a child?"

Obviously the father has little input into the child's life and the child is hardly the child of at least one sister. It is not the most socially ideal environment for a child. The child has not witnessed the loving relationship of his father toward his mother, and if so it would not be socially ideal. Otherwise he would spend time raising the child with more input than the other sister.