Opponents of gay marriage make much of the fact that there are gays and lesbians who do not want marriage, and who don't consider it a significant issue of equality.

The gay and lesbian community is as varied in its opinions as any other, and why wouldn't it be?

To make a leap from the fact that not everybody in that community sees the need for marriage equality, to the position that therefore we should not have it, is illogical.

If the institution is available, then people have the choice. Since when did it become progressive to restrict choice on the grounds of gender?

There are plenty of heterosexuals who don't want or need marriage - does this mean those who do should not be allowed to have it either?

Briar Rose: Please calm down. Yes, there are heterosexuals against marriage too, we’ve heard from them nonstop for 50 years.

The fact is the media has portrayed the debate as a war between “evil Christians” and “angelic gays” – so take your concerns to them. Fairfax is a classic example.

By the way, if you actually listened to gay people against gay marriages you’d see that they have made hundreds of excellent arguments against it. Why are their voices being marginalised?

Leftists like you should be encouraging more voices in this debate, not prompting a culture of censorship. I feel sorry for you. Please be more tolerant and open your ears.

I don't think you read my post properly, History Buff.
The point I made was about choice.

Both heterosexuals and homosexuals make very good arguments against marriage. I see no need to silence either community on this topic, and I've long advocated a robust discussion on the nature and purpose of the institution.

As I've also said many times in these forums, the debate for and against marriage, and the debate about ssm are two different issues that ought not to be conflated.

I think that those in the homosexual community who are against marriage have some interesting and important arguments to support their case.

But they are not, I don't think, making arguments against the right to choose. They are making arguments against the institution. As they do not favour it, they aren't inclined to feel deprived of choice when they can't engage in it. Others do. These others are of equal importance.

Briar – you haven’t read their arguments with an open heart. Depriving a child of a mother and father is also discrimination. So your point is circular.

What’s more we all know that there is a strong pro-gay marriage left lesbian culture in the ABC and Fairfax and that it censors alternative opinions, in the name of “tolerance.”

When I raise this issue people they say: “The media didn’t tell us about anti-gay marriage gays.” Go figure.

What’s more some activist groups are bullying anti-gay marriage gays and this issue needs to be addressed.

In an article about the enduring institution of marriage, I especially enjoyed the line about "faking majorities (a sign of desperation)." Love is patient, eh?

Speaking of selective/fudged data.

Here’s an amusing case in the US of a church doing a poll on the issue gay marriage with the intent of taking it all the way to congress. But when they didn’t get the result they were looking for, taking the poll to congress suddenly didn’t seem like such a good idea...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33WqLT2PMcc