I'm aware I'm preaching to the converted, it just makes me so mad.

And how! Here in Canada we've had a bishop say to the media that Chrétien (the Prime Minister) is going to go to hell if he proceeds with legalizing same-sex marriage. To be fair, the council of bishops (or whatever it's called) responded by saying deciding who was going to hell was God's business, and that they wouldn't have said it. Still we have religious leaders putting pressure on the politicians, especially the Catholic ones.

It astounds me - can they not see that this is going to be yet another of those issues for which they'll be sheepishly apologising for at some point in the (not-so-distant) future? Grrrr.

Huh, so gay marriages don't do much to add to the survival of the species?

Right. By that logic, plastic surgery and orthodonture should be considered fraud.

And who here can make the case for beer, spike heels, or skyscrapers furthering the survival of the species? Illegal, all of them.

As far as I'm aware, the survival of the species is not actually under threat in any case. Well, not from lack of procreation in any case.

Looking forward to a Victorian Buffistas F2F!

Huh, so gay marriages don't do much to add to the survival of the species?

I know a lot of opposite sex marriages that won't be producing children, including my own. does that make my marriage any less legit?

Whoops!

The problem in Australia is that women aren't producing enough babies of their own accord* (hence initiatives such as the federal govt's baby bonus) to ensure enough workers and taxpayers in the decades to come when the population is going to become oldie-heavy. The prime miniature and cronies are petrified that if they don't up the birth rate through the obvious means, the only solution will be MORE immigration.

(*Excepting the peasantry which of course is producing far more than the average and sometimes just to get the extra $300 a year per kid.)

Eta; I should point out that this post is heavily laced with sarcasm.

I know a lot of same sex marriages that won't be producing children, including my own. does that make my marriage any less legit?

If "not contributing to the survival of the species" were really the standard, couples would not be allowed to marry until -- oh, let's be generous and allow the wedding during pregnancy. The marriage, of course, would be dissolved as soon as all children reached maturity. Same sex couples with full (or, at the same level of generosity, joint) physical custody of children would be allowed to marry under the same terms and conditions.

And maybe things have changed since I was a kid, but I seem to remember something about caring for elderly/infirm relatives, including in-laws.

And they're still against immigration? That is completely insane! I can't believe this. I guess the lesson here is to never underestimate the stupidity-potential of a government.

ps Megan, either you made a typo, or you and B have been hiding something from me.

I have nothing to add to the discussion of nasty homophobic politics, except to say that I'm endlessly amused by the term "Prime Miniature".

Looking forward to a Victorian Buffistas F2F!

OK, I read this after all the celibacy/non-procreation talk, and though he meant Victorian Era, and was like "There's going to be hooking up whilst thinking of England? What?"

I may be expecting that if I get married, it will be to another female, but thanks to the wonders of sperm donation, that needn't stop me from procreating...heck, with two women, we could, in theory, pop out babies TWICE as fast as a straight couple! HAH! Lesbianism for all!

Edited my post to make other people look crazy rather than me.