Dearest sweet innocent Foxy,

It's amazing how your mind works. Are there bad marriages, even divorce and infidelities? Yes. Therefore .... ? Gosh, why isn't the world perfect ?

An interesting principle. Should we have exams ? After all, some people fail them, and anyway they're so stressful. So none of those. Cars ? Look at all the accidents ! So, no. Should someone try to start up a business ? What if he or she goes bust ? So, no.

So much goes wrong with everything, it's terrible really. Why can't everything be perfectly good ?

And then the non sequitur: " .... marriage as a bond between equals that is all about love and companionship. That changing definition has paved the way for same-sex marriage."

Or alternatively, no real need for marriage at all. People can actually live happily without it. Perhaps we can talk about "the stunningly rapid development of happy de facto relationships" ? Sorry, that's the remnants of old-fashioned Marxism still in my bones.

Love always notwithstanding,

Joe

The fact is one does not have to object to Homosexual marriage, one only has to promote heterosexual marriage as the case of Hobart's Arch Bishop Julian Porteous.

http://theconversation.com/without-proper-protections-same-sex-marriage-will-discriminate-against-conscientious-objectors-83348

Jo, I have to agree.
In Foxy's eyes only Homosexuals marriages are based in love and roses forever.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/jul/11/20030711-121254-3711r/

The average of homosexual relationships is 1 - 1 1/2 years obviously love runs out after that.

Quote, "A recent study on homosexual relationships finds they last 1-1/2 years on average — even as homosexual groups are pushing nationwide to legalize same-sex “marriages.”

The study of young Dutch homosexual men by Dr. Maria Xiridou of the Amsterdam Municipal Health Service, published in May in the journal AIDS, mirrors findings of past research.

Among heterosexuals, by contrast, 67 percent of first marriages in the United States last at least 10 years, and researchers report that more than three-quarters of married people say they have been faithful to their vows."

AJ,

I'm writing a 350 word blog post, not something that I expect to be parsed to within a inch of its life in an attempt to discover some erstwhile error.

I was talking about the lifestyle choices of the homosexual community, not the choices between hetro/homo. The paragraph makes it clear. Only those, and by those I mean you, who are determined to find some fault in their never ending desire for vindication, would have failed to notice that.

Equally.."Nature doesn’t feel abhorrence." yadda, yadda.

I was being prosaic. When physicists say 'nature abhors a vacuum' they aren't talking literally. Nor was I. As I wrote that post I figured that some dill might decide to take me literally but decided to leave it in to see who would. Gold star to AJP!

Although you've decide to concentrate on the peripheries my main points remain:

* Penetrative homosexual sex is inherently dangerous.
* Were it not for modern western medicine homosexuals practising that activity would be a declining breed. (if you'll forgive the expression)
* Given that this lifestyle choice is only possible in modern times its interesting to postulate if such mass diseases like AIDS in the past might explain the general world-wide taboo against anal 'love'.

Dear Josephus,

What the hell mate? You have just made a sterling argument for equal marriage rights. Well done.

First this;

"A recent study on homosexual relationships finds they last 1-1/2 years on average — even as homosexual groups are pushing nationwide to legalize same-sex “marriages.”

Then this;

“Among heterosexuals, by contrast, 67 percent of first marriages in the United States last at least 10 years, and researchers report that more than three-quarters of married people say they have been faithful to their vows."

The first talks about relationships and the second about marriages. So the question becomes how much of the differences can be attributed to the fact that the commitment involved in a marriage has an impact on the length of a relationship?

A clue came from the same article you quoted;

“The HRC analysis found that relationships were shortest for unmarried heterosexual partners living together, only 18 percent of whom had been together in the household for at least five years.”

Note though your article is from 2003.

Here is a more recent one from Stanford University which found;

“...that while same-sex couples in the US are more likely to break up than heterosexual couples ..., the difference in couple longevity is explained by the lower rate of marriage among same-sex couples. Once marriage (and marriage-like unions) are controlled for, same-sex couples and heterosexual couples have statistically indistinguishable rates of break-up.”
http://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_Couple_Longevity_Forthcoming_JMF.pdf

So as logic would tell us committing to a marriage had a direct bearing on the length of a relationship, independent it would now seem of its makeup.

Thanks mate. Another one for the armory. You certainly are a gift that keeps on giving. Any more?

Foxy wrote "One of the reasons for the stunningly rapid increase in
acceptance of same sex marriage is because many heterosexuals
have changed their notion of what marriage is. It is not
about being between a man and a woman.

"It is based on love, mutual sexual attraction, equality, and a
flexible division of labour."

Far from being "absolute nonsense" as one of the ad hominem posters derides this, in fact it elegantly sums up humanity's modern, evolved conception of what marriage is.