"No one is addressing the philosophical point either (except Bothersome who just denies it) that acceptance of THIS behavior, MUST mean acceptance of ANY behavior between consenting 'people'.. I won't say 'adults' because the definition of 'adult' is also subject to change."

Boazy is ignoring the clearly spelt out concept of informed consent. Mostly the term "consenting adults" has been used to keep the language simple but the idea of informed consent covers it.

Just which behaviour between people giving informed consent is Boazy concerned about? Polygamy (or one of the other versions of multiple partner relationships)?

Boazy attempted to provide earlier in one of the current discussions a biblical basis for rejecting polygamy (Kings are not supposed to do it although the king described as being a man after gods own heart was rather into it and I provided a hint about church leaders from the new testament). Boazy failed miserably to demonstrate a biblical basis for his objections to one of the other favourites of those who are worried about giving an inch.

The informed consent thing pretty much wipes out being able to marry the family pet.

Boazy has gone on about the risks associated with change and as far as I've been able to tell completely failed to address the point that has been made on a number of occasions that his own mixed race marriage would have been the subject of strong social taboo's in this country in times past and against the law in some other western countries. Many of the arguments he uses are kissing cousins of the arguments used against interacial marriage.

Should his own happiness be destroyed for the sake of the distress it causes to racists or is it only homophobes feelings that should be considered?

R0bert

Boaz, 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, though often all too aware of the prejudices they face in society. There isn't the slightest evidence that such children are deprived in any significant way, so despite your personal discomfort with it, it is reality, and will be eventually be legally recognised. Fortunately for you, given that Australian politics is so dominated by social conservatism, you will probably have a good 5 or 10 years to prepare yourself for it (the A.C.T. will go first, and unlike Howard, Rudd won't feel compelled to step in and prevent it).

Dear Botheration,

For once I don't know what to say...so I'll just say Thank-You!
(smile).

boaz: “ So the only likely outcome … will be to polarize the community, alienate a different (and much larger group)...”

You are wrong about the numbers. Surveys show the majority of the population support same sex unions. See: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/13/1978275.htm and http://www.tai.org.au/documents/downloads/WP79.pdf A minority of the population would be alienated – studies show they are the older, less educated and more religious people. It sucks for them; I appreciate that.

But that’s democracy.

Boaz: “you are seeking to re-shape society in terms of behavior which many of us find disgusting.”

Which is the same point I made about your teaching your son to discriminate against a child with two fathers. I know you cannot accept it, but I *truly* believe it’s disgusting to teach prejudice to an innocent child.

But that’s freedom.

Boaz: “No one is addressing the philosophical point either (except Bothersome who just denies it) that acceptance of THIS behavior, MUST mean acceptance of ANY behavior between consenting 'people'.. I won't say 'adults' because the definition of 'adult' is also subject to change.

Firstly, the argument *is* about adults. Australia – and the entire Western world – has an enduring definition of adult. No one’s trying to change it, Captain Paranoid.

Secondly, yes, I know this rankles, but grown up people, in their own homes, may do *anything they like*. Without asking your permission.

Thirdly, if your still trying to say that legalising homosexuality will open the door to bestiality and pediphilia, then prove it. You haven’t even tried to present a case. You can’t just *say* it. Where’s the evidence? Where’s the precedent? Where’s the connection between these things? As far as I’m concerned, you may as well say “of course, if we begin to sing Old McDonald Had a Farm, it will inevitably lead to the reversal of x and y in the Macquarie Dictionary!” In other words, your argument is a non sequiter.

Foxy, you’re quite welcome. Thanks for always bringing sense and compassion to these boards.

I must say from the outset that I am not comfortable with homosexuality, but I'm a pretty conservative type by nature.

With that declaration out of the way, there is a recent study (but cant remember the name - if I time will try and google it), that shows that homosexuality is not genetic (which was once thought was the case amongst gay men - probably goes towards arguing FOR gay marriage because they then wont procreate and prolong the gene!), but in fact is heavily related to how many boys within a family. The more boys, the higher the likelihood that then younger ones would be gay. This was thought to be a natural process of protection of the gene pool, whereby in a society with fewer females, the elder and usually dominant brother would procreate, but have non-competing younger brothers to help provide for and protect his offspring. The backing factor was that an uncle shares 25% of their genetic material with niece/nephew, and therefore has a reasonably strong genetic incentive to see the family gene pool survive, even where the child is not their own. Of course this would have become largely unneccesary now, but could be like a number of factors we have had influence our evolutionary survival, which have been hard to shake.

There is significant evidence that gay men in particular are born that way, and if this is the case then the arguement that its "unnatural" falls down straight away. Apparently the link isnt so strong with gay women (but that said, fewer seem to be as rabidly opposed to the idea of two women). And given that this is the case, then there is little arguement to backup the claim that children from gay relationships will be more likely to be gay themselves. They may however be more likely to experiment, which would no doubt be of concern to some

Thanks for the honesty, CountryGal, and the open-mindedness.

The effect you’re referring to is known as the fraternal birth order effect. There’s a relevant article in a recent Scientific American: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0005A6D3-7ADC-14A0-B6C483414B7F4945

It’s worth pointing out that the researchers claim that in a large minority of cases homosexuality is associated with fraternal birth order. They do not claim to have found a cause for homosexuality in every case. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=14994314

However it is clear that in many instances homosexuality is biologically determined. As you point out, this completely discredits fundamentalist claims that homosexuality is a (lifestyle) choice.

Denying a couple the right to formalise their relationship because they are the same sex is just as wrong as excluding left-handed or redheaded people from the right to marry.

Foxy, I’d like to refer to your assertion that “this is not a moral or religious issue.” This is correct, in that there is no moral ground for discriminating against homosexuals. To this extent, yes, it’s not a moral issue.

However when one section of society is denied rights available to everyone else, it certainly is a moral issue. We’ve agreed that it’s morally wrong to disadvantage people on the basis of their skin colour, nationality or ethnicity. We’re yet to apply this standard to those who are attracted to the same sex. This is a grave moral lapse in our society.

Thanks, botheration, for putting the financial disadvantages in perspective. Same-sex relationship recognition is simply that – recognition. It becomes a bit wearing when you’ve spent decades in a relationship and people still argue that it has less worth than a day-old marriage. It doubles the imposition when the relationship is also disadvantaged in practical and financial terms.