Foxy,

To me it's a no brainer of course!
As I said on the post on the other topic.
"So long as they have the same legal and cultural standing (long term public/social commitment) what's in a name? "
Meaning why not call it marriage?

My experience leads me to conclude that 'marriage' to the non religious and gays, represents social (as opposed to legal)commitment and acceptance that they are a couple.

NB That by no means that mean that some gays aren't at least as religious as the heterosexual (god knows why given the oppositional dogma they face from the churches. Perhaps their version of christian values is more apposite).

Resistance to this is clearly religion influenced and is to me one more reason that Church should be separated from state.

Sorry foxy no disrespect intended, I still believe in peoples' right to believe or not believe in a god as they choose .

again the poor children will lose. Fancy having such an unhealthy, unnatural lifestyle thrown in your face. Obviously medical research on this abominable lifestyle will never be honestly reported. Along with fornication and adultery this lifestyle leads to hell. Next we will be being told paedophilles are born that way. How sick!

I've got to admit that I can't understand
why in our society we don't simply -
"Live and let live." Do we all have to be
the same? Must we only recognise marriages
between a man and a woman? I understand
that for religious reasons this has been
considered the "norm." But does it have
to continue to be the only acceptable
"norm" for the future?

Surveys tell us that about 10 percent of
the population is believed to be
predominantly homosexual, although most of
these people also have some heterosexual
experience and may actually marry. The
great majority of gay men and lesbian women,
however, form stable, long-lasting relationships
with a person of the same sex at some time of
their lives. Changing attitudes have made these
unions far more socially acceptable than in the
past, and, in fact, some churches are now
performing weddings for gay couples, although
these marriages have no legal force. My question
is - why not? Why are straight marriages any
better than gay marriages?

Does anyone have the right to tell two
consenting adults who they have the legal right
to choose as their life's partner, and spend the
rest of their life with?

To me, it seems that this is such a personal
choice - and as long as it doesn't harm anyone,
who are we to dictate our standards and values -
onto any one else?

Yeah but they're rubbin' it in our face! ;-)

What they're rubbin' I'd love to know.

Hey runner, do you think if you saw more gay couples rubben' it in your face, you might be tempted to try it out? Maybe you're scared because, deep down, you really want someone to rub somethin' in your face? Maybe you really wanna do some rubbin' of your own?

It is common for two people and more to share living arrangements and support one another without having sexual relations. Then again, sexual relations are not a necessary requirement for a heterosexual couple to be considered de factos either.

Such couples can respect and love each other very deeply. Who isn't aware of older women in particular who never married or never re-married and shared an abode and living arrangements with each other for their remaining lives? Sometimes such couples are related, sometimes not what is usually true is the dependence upon one another for companionship, support and love in their daily lives. What about their rights? Why should such couplings (and some arrangements could be threesomes or more) be discriminated against if homosexual couplings can obtain benefits because some sex might or might not be going on?

The word 'commitment' is bandied about, but is the commitment of the two maiden aunts who have lived together for thirty years any lesser or different? As for 'intimacy', well that cannot be taken to mean sexual intimacy exclusively because sex in marriage is far from a given as many husbands and wives would attest and it certainly isn't something that can be enforced.

As someone who has recently entered marriage, I find the notion of a couple of blokes or two women pretending they have an entitlement to be categorized in the same was as what is clearly defined as a union of “one man and one woman”. I likewise find the notion of a bigamous / polyamorous relationship equally invalid from being deemed “marriage”.

Every social order is founded on standards. Standards of law, standards of behavior and standards of conduct etc..

I do not feel threatened by gay marriages any more than I feel threatened by asylum seekers but that is no reason to allow them in Australia (gay marriages or asylum seekers)

Notions such as gay or fixed-term only marriages (as Robert brought up) dilute the foundations of those standards and what we end up with is a murky sort of social anarchy, where standards are abandoned and anything goes, provided some government functionary has stamped it.

As for some acknowledgement of relationship, for the purposes of welfare receipts or recognition in a will or as an insurance beneficiary…. I have no problem with