Foxy,

"It is important to recognise, therefore, that there is an
immense range in marriage, family, and kinship patterns;
that each of these patterns may be, at least in its own
context, perfectly viable; and above all that the family, like
any other social institution, must inevitably change
through time, in our own society, as in all others."

Very true and it's also very true that in the vast, vast majority of these systems marriage is between opposite sexes; same sex marriage is the abnormality for as the basis for a family it fails.

lovely to see how biology means nothing to those trying to justify all kinds of perversion. And AJ claims to be rational. You are a joke.

AJ,
As I said before, I do not care what homosexuals do to or with each other. However I do care about any adverse effects on my own marriage and I think that the use of the word marriage for homosexuals will result in a lack of respect, by the community, in the institution of marriage. If granted it soon will become viewed by most people as a tainted position.

Whether you agree or not and whether you like it or not, most people see the sexual practices of homosexuals as being dirty and it is this belief that will lead to the lack of respect.

Most people are aware that the only reason for homosexuals to want the word marriage is to try and impose a false sense of acceptance of their sexual practices. Wordsmiths could soon come up with another word meaning a homosexual union.

Foy,

"I have learned from experience to check on so called "experts" when they cite their views"..."

Well that's a good practice. Did you also check on the so-called experts when you first saw the AMA report? If so, did you notice that some of their data was attacked?

I guess what I was trying to do here Foxy was to nudge you to an understanding that both sides only present you with the data that suits their pre-judged biases. Fact checking one but not the other leads you down the garden path.

The SMH only showed you one side of the story.

The AMA openly asserted that no contrary data existed whilst knowing that it did exist.

Those who wrote the critique have over-stated the value of the data they cite.

But when you actively fact-check one side and not the t'other, you are no longer searching for the truth but simply looking for confirmation of prejudices.

I think you're better than that.

AJ
Its not a double standard, its a different standard.

I'm not opposed to homosexual marriage because of any ill-feelings toward that group. I'm opposed to anything that weakens the natural nuclear family. Its also why I oppose things like 'safe' schools, favour school voucher systems, income splitting among married couples. I favour those things that enhance the viability and prestige of the nuclear family and the nuclear parents, and I oppose those things that do the opposite.

"You carry on as if I should be embarrassed by my memory’s failure there. "

No. What was embarrassing was that, having realised (or being led to) your error, you then studiously refused to take the next logical step - reexamine your views. As I pointed out earlier, when the 'facts' are merely there to support a pre-judged opinion, opinions don't change when the facts change.

When you were preening yourself last year about having examined all the reasons for opposing SSM and finding none of them of value, I decided to test that by presenting you with a view that, clearly, you hadn't examined. When you then sought to reject that view based on faulty data, I'd hoped that you'd at least accept that the 'no' case had some validity. But I guess we'll never get there.

"Really now? Since when have I ever implied that opposition to same-sex marriage is confined to the religious?"

I wasn't referring to you personally there. I was referring to " those of a certain leaning". It was a collective 'you'. I acknowledge the ambiguity.

"You also completely evaded my points regarding the fact that same-sex couples are already having kids."

Not evaded, just discounted. Yes homosexuals are having kids. So are poly-amorous 'families'. So are incestuous 'couples'. So are teenage girls in forced marriage arrangements. The fact that they are having kids doesn't legitimise the arrangement. And the fact that they are having kids doesn't mean that we fail to recognise that those kids are at a disadvantage and seek to discourage the arrangement that causes that disadvantage.

Foxy, if you were a public servant who had decided to approve a couple
of homosexual men adopt a young boy would you risk that boy coming back
in 20 years or so to sue you for happened to him ?