>>Explicitly within the content and the messaging, sexuality of whatever nature is deemed to be inherently equal and morally valid.<<

And? What's wrong with that? How can you reasonably assign moral value to somebody's sexuality? Being attracted to the opposite sex isn't noble or ignoble - me liking women doesn't make me a better person or a worse person. Rudolf Hoess was a committed family man; JFK was a serial womanizer - both clearly heterosexual and at opposite poles of the moral compass. So if being attracted to the opposite sex doesn't make you a good or bad person then why would being attracted to the same sex make you a good or bad person? On what ethical framework do you base your opposition to homosexuality?

Cheers,

Tony

...Marriage between homosexuals, on a scale of one to ten, would rate last and the least important in terms of relevant issues in our communities, requiring the investment of the valuable resource of a politicians’ time.

...While notable, high profile and loudly advocating homosexuals such as Penny Wong and the retired High Court judge, Justice Michael Kirby, team-up to advocate for community acceptance of homosexuality, (in all its guises), and use their own personal overweighted examples as evidence of success; the “Romney 47%” of Australian society with no political voice at all, sit and wonder about the inequality and unfairness of political representation, which can be so successfully skewed towards the “irrelevant”!

Sorry, this is a little away from the main points of the article. but I am genuinely puzzled by the desire to legalise a relationship and call it a marraige.

Over the years I have known many people sharing their lives, apparently happily, and for their own reasons, not married. There must be many thousands of partnerships who can get by without being designated by the term-"marraige".

It would not be difficult to enter in to a legal partnership if one desired. So why not live in a way that suits without having to alter the dictionary meaning of marraige?

If you do a Google on this chap you will find that he has quite a bit of sympathy for that charming outfit opus dei. The serious members of which practice bodily self-mortification on a daily basis.

Personally I would not let ANY child anywhere near a person who practices self-mortification.

Remember too that Tony Abbott has more than passing sympathy with opus dei, as does his "spiritual" mentor/adviser George Pell.

But what is normal anyhow?

The systematic abuse of children as practiced for decades by priests in Ireland, which was of course systematically covered up too.
Or perhaps we should use the monstrous dramatized example of the founder of the "traditionalist" outfit the legionaires of christ, Marcial Maciel. This chap was much favoured by the previous pope.
Why wasnt he brought before a court of law and thus thrown into to prison for the rest of his life?
Do a Google on the sex lives of the popes - you know the chaps that are supposed to be infallible and icons of christ.

I'd be very surprised to learn that non-judgemental teaching about homosexuality isn't already in the school curriculum. I'd be bloody astonished to learn that legalising gay marriage had any effect on that curriculum and the way it was presented. The reason that children should be taught that "sexuality of whatever nature is deemed to be inherently equal and morally valid" -- assuming that means 'between consenting adults' -- is because it IS, by rational people, and nobody has yet put forward a genuine argument, as opposed to a religious argument, to show that it isn't.

Really, how much further down are theist bigots going to dig for their pathetic arguments? They're way past the bottom of the barrel and heading for the Antipodes.

Now, let's answer Greg's question. Some children have two mummies and they are lucky and some children have two daddies and they are lucky too. Some children have a mummy and a daddy... See, it isn't that hard is it?