Richard Kings conveniently forgets that when Liberal Party philosophies were being put together 60 years ago homosexual relationships were considered un-natural and the thinking at the time was was that there were men and women and children came naturally as the result of interaction between the two, mostly through marriage.

When one reads a sentence such as "That all minorities, be they Aborigines, gays, Jews, or any other, and their legitimate interests, must be protected, as must their legitimate interests, against sectional and selfish policies imposed by others", the term "gays" is out of place. It is fine to consider Aborigines or Jews as minority groups because one is considering a normal group with men and women in normal relationships. To include "gays" makes the assumption that being in a homosexual relationship is also quite normal.

People who support the traditional relationship between men and women believe that it is un-natural to have homosexual preferences. That is, one doesn't have to be "gay". I know a woman who lived in a homosexual relationship with another woman for a number of years but is now happily married to a loving husband and has children that have come from their marriage.

Certainly tolerance includes accepting that individuals can choose to live in homosexual relationships if that is their wish. However, whilst being tolerant it is perfectly reasonable to argue that the societal norm is the traditional man/woman relationship and that should be fostered and supported by all Australians.

And I know plenty of men and women formerly in straight relationships and who now identify as gay. And what is this 'unnatural' crap I keep reading whenever homosexuality is raised as a topic? Being gay is no more 'unnatural' than having an imaginary friend (often known as religion), preaching the joys of celibacy and then molesting young children (commonly known as the Catholic priesthood) or genital mutilation (common to the Muslim, Jewish and Christian religions even in 2005).

Spare me your 'natural'. Thugs are expressing their masculinity on Sydney beaches in the most natural fashion they can. And out of interest, how many of them identify as gay? Not too many, I'd imagine. No, I bet anyone they are heterosexual. Before anyone pontificates ignorantly from their soapbox about gays, maybe they'd like to clean up their own act.

Its Not a privelage to be gay or religous, HELLO?

Deal with it, im sure the person who faught in Veitnam who has one leg who now lies in a wheelchair deserves more support who was probally spat on by even some of the readers of this article when he came back from war.

A few women and men worried about their "sexual lives". In a country known for acceptance they should be gratefull of what they have and not want more. Could be worse, we could live in a Anti-homosexual government with death penalties... If you dont see the point by now then you wont see if after. Gay rights are already here, people just dont have the stomach to confess or use them properly.

It is about the greatest good for the greatest number.

Gay people have a right to do what they want, I agree they cannot choose it, but it is again a personal thing. should we then spend the money changing the system to accomodate? if we do, other groups have a right also.

Societal structures and the sacredity of marriage is the key to our culture. The world can be gay friendly without bending over backwards for another minority group.

Marriage (from my school days) was defined as "the unity of a man and woman in a volantary commitment for life to the exclusion of all others"

Gay people can have de facto relationships, there is marginal legal difference. They cannot simulate a relationship between a man and woman, most dont raise a family, therefore if being gay is the vogue, so too is things like defacto relationships and the like.

If gay people need to be married for a reason i understand. But just to 'feel better', and to integrate into society more?

For those who say 'gay guys were not part of those riots', no they were probably all sick with Aids. Generalisations are at complete odds to your cause, if you want to play trump cards be prepared to be trumped by reverse generalisations.

Be stong for the cause, i agree with equal rights and opportunites for gay people, but not for the sacred commitment of marriage.

Marriage is not one single concept. Australian society does not recognise or allow polygynous or polyandrous marriages, but that does not mean they do not exist.

Why do people marry in Australia? To show to the rest of society that they aim to keep only to their partner, and that they wish to remain in that relationship for the rest of their lives. That these promises are not always kept does not diminish the intent with which people enter into that contract.

They also marry for the legal benefits it brings, the entitlements to superannuation, often medical/legal power of attourney, rights to equal property share, irrespective of the proportion of income contributed by each party, etc.

I see little reason why two men or two women should be legally barred from making that same public committment.

I do not see why GLBTI people should specifically appeal to the Liberal party, as they in general seem to be moving more to the 'right', but perhaps it would do this society good in general for the Liberal party to be brought back to its original aims of being 'liberal minded'.

I do recall reading that some conservatives in the US were arguing in favour of gay marriage, on the premise that they believe that sexual relationships outside of marriage are wrong, and that therefore society should be encouraging those whom it accepts are 'pair-bonded' (for want of a better term) to marry, rather than have 'unofficial' relationships tacitly condoned. Which goes to show there are many ways to look at this.

Yet another example of morality, as perceived by various religious groups, being forced down everyone else's throat. I went, on a scholarship, to a school which placed great emphasis on its brand of Christianity. One of the things I was taught is that the second greatest commandment is "Love your neighbour as yourself". Well, I don't begrudge my gay "neighbours" the joy and fulfillment of a loving and/or sexual relationship, nor the emotional, spiritual and legal benefits which can follow from a formal marriage, if that is what they desire.