One of the more interesting things about the campaign for gay marriage is that the more people argue about homosexuality -- and polyamory -- the less scary it seems to become. My feeling is that simply getting these sexual preferences out in the open and letting people talk and write about them objectively is probably doing more for the gay cause than anything else. In fact the religious right may find themselves hoist by their own petard: they can't talk about liberalising marriage without discussing sexual activities, and they can't talk about sexual activities without making their more enlightened supporters think: "Well, what's actually wrong with that?"

If the homophobic community ran out of excuses for their own peculiar predilection or pernicious perversion? They'd invent one or even several dozen? Just so they can keep discriminating against gays or gay bashing?
To be sure gay bashing is not always a physical beating, but can take many other forms, such as discrimination, or (partly) withheld medical care, diagnoses and or medicine withheld?
Roll on the electronic conversion of medical records, which may well identify those few medicos, who have covertly practised this rare form of medical care, except say when the patient turns up in "their" hospital?
Where the question might well be put. "Do you have an undisclosed "medical condition"?
Putting the onus of proof on the hapless and or medically ignorant patient?
Just prior to 1986 there were 142 registered haemophiliacs in Australia. Since then each and every one of those patients have died from medically acquired aids!
The reason?
Well aids was primarily a "homosexual' disease; or a condition that dare not speak its name?
Hence suffers, straight blood or blood product recipients and gay, were all put in the same basket of medically categorised discrimination?
Some Dr's may be able to delete records which clearly demonstrate they were party to this type of discrimination?
What however, that can't be deleted, is people's memories.
Gay bashing is very much alive and well and includes any number of straights, who unfortunately acquired a "medical condition" by medical means.
If you would contact the medical ombudsman you first need to see the health professional and identify your complaint; which gives any offender, time to shred/delete any paper/electronic proof?
It is time for all the discrimination to end and those practising it openly or covertly, be brought to book and asked to account for and or pay for their ILLEGAL participation.
In closing let me say, very persuasive and cogent article any fair-minded person would simply have to agree with? Rhrosty.

I think it hypocritical that the author is obviously pro gay marriage but wants society to continue to discriminate against other minority groups who would also like to get married. Whilst the anti gay marriage crowd may well be raising this issue as a scare mongering tactic, that does not change the fact that polygamists have as good an argument to be allowed to marry as gays do. In fact polygamous marriage at least has historical precedents in many societies, unlike gay marriage.
The main good argument for gay marriage is that consenting adults should be able to marry whoever they like, and the government has no business poking their nose into the marital affairs adult Australians. This applies as much to polygamous relationships as it does to monogamous ones be they heterosexual or homosexual.

This is a political debate, aimed at hijacking another perfectly good word for the sole reason that it suits the homosexual political agenda. I am sure that it is an activist agenda, to build political leverage, and not shared by the general homosexual population.

It has nothing to do with freedom. You are free to marry anyone, so long as they are a member of the opposite sex.

If you want a word for your relationships with the same sex, which are not marriage, then invent a word for them, and stop trying to inflict your fabricated views on a society which does not share them.

those who deny the slippery slope arguement shut their eyes to history and are naive enough to believe that a flood of porn in a community doesnot lead to increase child abuse. Commonsense will not prevail when the selfishness of a small percentage of individuals takes precendence over the common good of society.

runner, the worst child abuse in history took place in the Victorian era, when children of three and four were sent up chimneys to clean them, or down mine shafts that were too small for adult men to stand erect. And the Victorians also had the strongest and most stringent moral standards of any major society in history. Coincidence? Or is it just that when you're working hard on your own moral impeccability you don't have the time to consider what other people are up to?