With all the noise being made by gay lobbyists about their right to marry, often suggesting that the majority now supports their quest, I think they have to understand that a large portion of the non gay population, simply doesn't give a toss, so the numbers are somewhat distorted.

Using the 'squeaky wheel' scenario, the law of averages would suggest they will more than likely succeed with thier quest.

So before they go to much further with this, I would suggest they ask themselves, will we be happy for our union to be classed as 'legally married', or, will that mean little to us if the general public either don't care, or don't recognize them as married.

I would suggest the latter.

After all, recognition is more what this is all about.

As I say, being legal and being recognized are two very different things, and that is something I doubt they could accept.

Being legal affords them the protection of law and from discrimination that is what I think they are after. But it also opens a can of worms they may not have thought about like in a break up someone gets half of what the other had.
Personally I hate the idea of two gay men making out in public. What they do behind closed doors I don't care, out of sight out of mind.

Philip I think that the de-facto laws opened that can of worms up for same sex couples already as it did for a lot of people who quite specifically had not chosen to make the non-binding commitment that is marriage.

I doubt that the marriage issue has a lot to do with legal protection for most, it is however one of the few remaining government endorsed points of discrimination remaining.

There are all sorts of arguments against which don't stand scrutiny when compared to the way 2 person heterosexual marriages actually seem to exist in our world.

I'd like to see the government get out of the marriage business, while they stay in it marriage should be available to all consenting adult humans regardless of their gender or numbers mix. As some of the religious crowd seem to struggle with this I'll point it out again, no pets or children allowed as they are not consenting adult humans.

R0bert

Philip>> Being legal affords them the protection of law and from discrimination that is what I think they are after. But it also opens a can of worms they may not have thought about like in a break up someone gets half of what the other had.<<

Philip I believe you have it arse about. As I understand it, from the long term political activists in the Gay community, it is about the right to claim the estate of your partner should he or she shuffle off. The recognition by the State that if a person dies intestate that their recognized legal partner is the primary heir.

>>Personally I hate the idea of two gay men making out in public. What they do behind closed doors I don't care, out of sight out of mind.<<

I can't bear to look at two men with moustaches kissing and I have no issue with faggoty guys, but that sends a shiver up my spine. Two unattractive dykes do the same for me. But paradoxically I don't look away if two hot chicks are swapping saliva.

Rehctub, if by “recognized” you mean accepted by society, that aint going to happen. In the same way we differentiate races we differentiate sexuality, we may not call a gay a gay, but we identify it as a point of difference between that person and ourselves. In exactly the same way the gay person identifies heterosexuals as different from them, and as for bisexuals, they are just greedy.

What a picture, two walruses coming together, and they are both cigar smokers.

I support gay marriage for this reason.
Two gay friends of one of my sons, who met in university - I'll call them John and Bill to make the story easier to tell - formed a lasting relationship and lived together for more than fifteen years.
While Bill was overseas, John had a stroke and was in hospital, unconscious.
Bill caught the first plane back.
When he arrived at the hospital, John's family, who had never acknowledged the relationship, even though these two men were genuinely in love for fifteen plus years, claimed the right to make decisions at the hospital and said only family members could see John, thus Bill was excluded.
Bill sat in the waiting room for a little over two days until a nurse finally came to tell him that John had just died without ever regaining consciosuness.
He never had the chance to say goodbye to the love of his life.
Can you imagine his feelings as he sat in that waiting room?
I still find this deeply moving, and can only imagine if it had been my wife in there and I was not allowed to see her; because for Bill, it was the same thing.
It convinced me that any circumstances that can allow such cruelty cannot be right.
And so, for this reason, I do give a toss and actively support gay marriage.
Admittedly this happened a few years ago, and perhaps things have changed legally, but I think gay marriage would do no harm, but it might save someone else from going through such an experience.
And can anybody seriously say that the love between two gay people is any less real, any less valid than the love between two heterosexual people?
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au