Philo: << Are you telling me homosexual men engage in oral sex? >>

While it may come as something of a shock to you, many indeed do - as do heterosexual men and women, and undoubtedly lesbians. But that has nothing to do with marriage.

It's interesting that nowhere among the convoluted, disingenuous and/or hateful guff posted here by the homophobic contingent is there to be found a direct answer to my very simple question to be found, i.e.

Why shouldn't homosexual couples who wish to marry be allowed to do so?

While I'm at it, HermanYutic never answered my question as to what s/he means by "natural law", and what it has to do with marriage.

CJ Morgan,
"Why shouldn't homosexual couples who wish to marry be allowed to do so?"
Why should less than 2% of the population redefine the marriage institution just because their behaviour excludes them from it?
Why should kindergarteners be served up the palpable nonsense that two men "marrying" is just the same as a man and a woman marrying?
Why should society sanction the deliberate deprivation of children of any possibility of having a mother and a father?
Why should children be taught that a lifestyle fraught with health risks is an equally valid alternative?
Why should children be taught that anal sex between two men is just as normal and natural as vaginal sex between a man and a woman when there is mountains of data to quantify the health risks?
Why shouldn't incestuous couples, trios, etc, who wish to marry be allowed to do so?
Why shouldn't menages a trois, quatre, cinq, etc, who wish to marry be allowed to do so?
Why shouldn't any consenting combination who wish to marry be allowed to do so?

Hermanyutic, couldn't you come up with some more credible sites denouncing homosexuality than the two mad American sites you gave us?

I did read through them, and I actually laughed out loud at the announcement that they had books and seminars for sale outlining how to 'heal' homosexuality! Yeah right!
(NARTH site sells- "Healing Homosexuality: Case Stories of Reparative Therapy." by Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.)

The two sites rave on about how most homosexuals were sexually abused as children, and this was why they 'turned out gay'.
Well what about all those gay people who weren't abused as children? How did their sexual orientation come about?

I personally know of many gay people in this situation who were also brought up in loving 2 parent, Christian households.
How on earth did they 'become' homosexual then Herman and Philo?

Do you guys even know any gay people personally? There are good and bad people of all sexual orientations.

Many male paedophiles molest little girls- that doesn't sound like homosexuality should be linked to pedophilia?

Many male priests and brothers who were convicted of molesting the boys in their care did so because they mostly only had male children in their care.
The girls were usually in schools and institutions run by female carers.

Come on guys, open your' minds to the reality of homosexuality, and just get on with your own lives, and leave the gay people to their lives in peace.

Pericles, I was being facetious, but, have you seen my car?

The NO's have it, then.

Suze, HY is just regurgitating the narth.com lies. They’ve all been soundly refuted, but some people are impervious to the truth.

The Senate’s recent inquiry into the proposed amendment to the Marriage Act received around 29,000 submissions, showing if nothing else that this is an issue of great interest to Australians.

The Inquiry website has a selection of these submissions http://aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/legcon_ctte/marriage_equality/submissions/sublist.htm The submission from Australian Marriage Equality addresses, in turn, all of the following objections to same-sex marriage:

<quote from table of contents>

5. The case against reform

Objections regarding perceived characteristics [of] marriage:
a) The definition of marriage
b) Marriage is an unchanging institution
c) Historical tradition and the cross-cultural experience
d) Religion
e) The freedom of religious officials and institutions will be violated
f) Procreation
g) Gender complimentarity
h) Marriage will be diminished, demeaned, degraded or destroyed
i) Harm to families and children
j) The slippery slope
k) Equality is opposed by key constituencies

Objections regarding perceived characteristics of same-sex relationships:
l) Same-sex relationships are shorter, less happy, less stable and less committed
m) We should not radically redefine marriage for a tiny number of people
n) Most same-sex couples do not want to marry and are happy as they are

<end quote>

You can access it here: http://aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/legcon_ctte/marriage_equality/submissions/sublist1/Sub_m90.pdf The whole submission is worth reading but if you want to read just the section addressing the case against reform, it starts on page 33. I think you’ll find that it answers all of KMB/HY’s objections, and more.

The Castan Centre for Human Rights Law submission is also worth a read http://aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/legcon_ctte/marriage_equality/submissions/sublist1/Sub_m87.pdf (and it’s shorter that the Australian Marriage Equality one).