Rehctub, It's not just about bedroom games, or the barrenness of a particular marriage, or even just inheritances. "Married" people have unique access to each other in hospital, and to decision making in extremis, and even after death. Not every couple has a living will, and many younger couples would not anticipate the need. Duly recognised marriages permit one access to the other unequivocally. This permits medical and post-mortem decisions to be made swiftly that might reflect what the patient and their life partner desired, rather than some blood relative they have not so chosen. Do you want your wife talking to the doctor, or your estranged but pushy sister who disapproves of your wife? Maybe you wouldn't care but many do. It should not be up to medical staff, nor should distinguishing differing "types" of marriage be their problem in a stressful and emotionally charged environment. The simple answer is *one* type of legally recognised marriage, for *whoever* wants it.

I suspect vanishingly few homosexual couples will actually want to be members and be married by a church that explicitly doesn't want them, has traditionally bemoaned their existence. Then again, churches turn a good dollar on the wedding trade to non-members, have very often been subsidised to purchase premises and receive tax-exemptions, so do they serve the general public one-and-all or just their arbitrarily bounded but publicly assisted club?

Rusty.

//You fat elephant seal!//

With a waist of 35 inches and a mass of 65kg? That isn't fat by human standards, let alone elephant seal standards.

By that metric, catwalk models are 'well-covered', Tony Abbbott is 'a big boy', Bill Shorten is 'a bit lardy', Barnaby Joice is 'morbidly obese', Joe Hockey is 'a beached whale' and Clive Palmer is 'titanic'.

Do you have an eating disorder? Because that might explain why you perceive 65kg men as being overweight.

Is Mise,
That's exactly what the Gay radicals did in Denmark but it's a slightly different situation as the main Lutheran denomination is not separate from the state and is bound by it's equal opportunity legislation. So in Denmark a pastor can refuse to carry out a same sex marriage on the basis of a conscientious objection but the church has a responsibility to provide a pastor who will officiate, they can't refuse outright.

What exactly are you trying to say there A J PHILIPS ? That instances of bestiality are fallacious ? Indeed you'd be surprised ? Not every occurrence can be found contained within the dusty covers of a legal almanac ? In fact in my time I cannot recall (ever) a charge being laid citing such a curious violation ? The fact it's rarely formerly recorded, shows those at the coal face know when it's prudent to pause, and then withdraw, rather than rushing in an attempt to record a conviction. The establishment of the 'proofs' alone, is sufficient enough deterrent for the average detective to look elsewhere for a pinch ? '...Obviously your joke one (sic) doesn't count..' probably not ? A cursory peek at a copy of DSM.V under 'deviant sexual behaviour' might enlighten your perspective somewhat A J PHILIPS ?

Peter Singer, Philosopher and a Founder of the Greens in Australia believes that it is OK to have sexual relations with animals, providing always that the animal is not harmed.

One presumes that a normally endowed human male could have a satisfactory and ethical sexual relationship with a sheep but Singer would rule ot doe rabbits or any rabbit for that matter.

A human female would not face the same ethical constraints.

//One presumes that a normally endowed human male could have a satisfactory... sexual relationship with a sheep//

Only if one is from New Zealand.

Best joke ever:

A Kiwi goes on holiday to Australia and takes his favourite sheep with him. He takes it everywhere with him on a lead. One day whilst in an outback pub, a shearer casts an eye over his very woolly sheep and asks 'Hey mate, when you gunna shear that thing?'

The Kiwi looks at him indignantly and says 'I'm not shearing her wuth anybody.'