"Hasn’t the rainbow flag, at long last, swept across our collective consciousness and enlightened us all?"

Ah, no Lyn. Not every one would agree with those sentiments. Inequality laws have gone a long way towards protecting gay people and that's a good thing, but I believe it's more like the case of religious vilification laws and other legislation protecting the "rights" of minority groups. People may not necessarily agree with them, but are reluctant to disagree with those laws in case they themselves should be vilified. Eg: Mention any perceived animosity towards religion, race, or color in Australia and see how quickly you are branded a bigot, even if your comments are not intended that way. In short, people are scared to open their mouths, but that doesn't mean homophobia isn't alive and well.

Homosexuality in Australia evokes reactions of anything from mild amusement to outright hostility. It's an 'in-bred' thing often handed down from parents to offspring, especially amongst those who are of traditional British hereditary or are fundamentalists from whichever religion and that's something that can't be bred out of the Australian psyche whilst this practice of homophobia continues.

Personally, I believe ALL Australians should be protected against discrimination at all levels including equal rights. Some major legislation to this effect has been passed in recent years, yet much more needs to be done, however I wouldn't hold my breath while you wait for Howard, Abbott, Costello or their ilk to come on board!

Everyone - as a member of a democracy - should be offended by this.

It is on par with denying blacks the vote and denying women the vote - in my opinion. This is blatant descrimination and relegates homosexuals to the status of second class citizens. There is not ONE convincing argument in favour of denying homosexuals the right to marry (and yes, i said marry...not a civil union, which would just be descrimination by another name). It is pure and simple an attempt by religious groups to illegitimise homosexuality. So much for a separation of church and state.

So long as no-one is harmed in any way as a result (and with apologies to Voltaire), I say: "I may not agree with what a man (does) - but I will defend to the death his right to (do) it.”

There should be no excuse, in law or morality, for penalising or promoting disadvantage for any human beings who come and remain together, based on mutual love.

I have a gay cousin who is 'married' to his partner under UK law. They are both 'nice guys' and work in high levels of the legal profession. They contribute equally in their relationship and have made their wills in favour of one another. I have no difficulty with these things.

I also have a more distant cousin who is in a same sex relationship with another female. They have a daughter. I do have a difficulty with this. Their daughter is being brought up in a manner which is making it difficult for her to experience or have a normal relationship with the opposite sex. She has an early and unhealthy interest in all men and is, I believe, vulnerable.
What her parents do as consenting adults is fine but imposing their sexual preferences on a child or denying their child heterosexual experiences is entirely unacceptable.

Only 58 ? maybe we need more....

Its really quite simple.

MAN + WOMAN= CHILD.. reproduction of the species.

MAN + MAN or WOMAN+WOMAN = abnormal, dysfunctional, strange, not normal.

There can be no question that such relationships are not normal biologically. As such, these relationships must be denied legally the possibility to:

a) Marry.
b) Raise Children.
c) Have children by 'sneaky' means.

If men want to have sex with men.... and women with women.. ok fine.. do whatever you like, and sort it out with your Creator when you meet Him, but DONT' tell us that it is 'normal' and DON'T tell us it is 'ok' and DON'T tell us that we should just accept you as 'any other couple', because I won't.

I'll have compassion on you like I would for any person with a disability or a biological problem (such as being born with genitalia of both sexes) or..hormonal abnormalities.. etc, but compassion goes as far as acceptance, support, counsel, - NOT in trying to restructure society so CHILDREN become involved.

I have compassion for the paranoid Schitzoprenic who was almost violent toward me some time back, but I won't let it go beyond certain sensible limits. He WILL take his medication or be reported.

Same sex families are deviant... dangerous and doubtful. No compromise, and for those who seek to change the law to favor this.."No Prisoners"

BOAZ_David, what a truly offensive post. Unfortunately, while I would love to deride you as being out on some sort of loony fringe, I suspect you are in fact part of a very substantial minority who hold views identical to your own.

Your argument, which seems to you so self-evident, is based upon the fallacious premise that the purpose of relationships is reproduction. Following your logic, MAN + INFERTILE WOMAN or vice versa, should be an equal 'abomination', unable as it is to yield children.

The laws Allison is talking about, however, are not just laws about recognising gay "marriage". They're more practical than that. Explain to me, for instance, why the Judges Pensions Act should prevent Justice Kirby's long time partner from obtaining a pension if Justice Kirby dies. Explain to me why the same sex partner of a fallen serviceman or woman should not receive a pension. Explain to me why a gay couple should not be treated, for taxation purposes, in the same way as a straight couple. What, they should pay extra tax because they are gay?

As for children, BOAZ_David, would you rather children were brought up in a loving gay home, or a violent straight home? So, I'm NOT saying all straight families are violent. I *am* saying that what counts is the quality - not the gender - of the parenting.

Speak for yourself, BOAZ_David, but don't presume to speak for me. I share neither your intolerance nor your fear.