I suspect this piece will also put its author "in the unusual position of receiving praise from the left." But all credit should go where credit is due, as any neoliberal monetarist should remind you.

Perhaps this little avalanche of articles about gay marriage indicates a policy shift is under way on the right post-Howard. If so, even more credit will be due. But I am not getting my hopes up yet.

Homosexuality is a perversion - pure and simple.

Increasingly, however, the perversion is being treated as though it were normal; and by people who are not gay, as well the perverts themselves.

Gay marriage and official recognition of it would be the last straw.

Still, many civilizations have failed a disapperared over the ages because of aberrant behaviour.

It seems that our own civilization is about to go the same way

I agree with Tom Clarke and the author. The author convincing argues that utilitarian argument against same sex marriage is unsustainable and, in fact, it gives a better case for same sex marriage. I have never understood how two same sex people getting married interferes with a heterosexual couples marriage? I also don’t understand the argument that marriages about re-production – If so – we would have to ban all fertility challenged coupes form marrying!

Billy,
The answer to your question is in Leigh's post.
Homosexuals are an interference because some people *say so*. Difference is put down to "perversion" which is unacceptable.
To put more plainly: intolerance and failing to love thy neighbor is OK if it is from a sense of "rightness" (I've got to say it, usually fired by religious arrogance).

Leigh. Civilisation fail because they over-consumed their resources, let leaders waste resources or promote division (Howard's game), or lost the bigger context (barbarians over next hill). NOT because they worry about consensual adults sexual variety.
I find the image of gay sex quite disturbing (so I don't imagine it often!), but in the scheme of things it is not important enough to break the bigger rules of respect. Variety is not a sin, nature needs and celebrates it.

I cannot fathom being gay nor can i find any reason why a bloke would want to do things with another bloke.

In the case of Gay marriage though, being fair diinkum, who are they hurting? it is great that gay people find love and want to marry, it is far better than having single seedy gay men running around parks etc trolling for sex. If they all where married and shared committed relationships and shared ordinary, parallel lives to the rest of us, there would be no stigmas, no issues and no problems with assimilation.

lets give these people the right to live as decent ordinary citizens, this is all they want and realistically, there would be no problem with the gay community from straight people if they were citizens who shared the same goals in life with the family unit still being the centre. it may take a generation or so for the community to accept it as the norm, but after thism the issues will be over, just like with womens rights etc last century.

By not allowing this to happen we are making them society's inferior class, which further created problems.

Best of luck with making it happen.

Legal recognition of gay marriage is all about acknowlegement that tens of thousands of gay couples should be afforded the same equal human rights under Australian law as enjoyed by the majority of citizens who are heterosexual couples. We pose no threat by changing our marital status from 'single' to 'married'.

The Spanish government recently passed gay marriage laws over the vehement opposition by the Pope. The consequence? Has Spanish civilization been smited for collaboration with Sodomites? No - harmony, inclusion and tolerance has greeted the new order.

Spanish lawmakers have enhanced human dignity by asserting the role of a secular government in up-holding non-negotiable core values of equal treatment in compliance with the UN Charter of Human Rights.

My gay partner and I want the legal recognition of marriage because our relationship rights are important to us. Symbolicly, we may present ourselves to our community as two adults who made a mutual committment to a life long monogamous relationship. I believe that there are broad public interest benefits that accrue in societies where any loving couples make that most personal choice, to share their lives.

At a personal level, marriage may help to minimise risks. For example, if I am ever in a coma at hospital, I want the medical staff to take their instructions from my married partner. Currently, hospital policy will ensure that my partner's views don't count, and at worst, he may be even be refused visiting rights because he is 'not related.'

This situation is an outrage, requiring a strong bi-partisan remedy. It will mean upsetting socially conservative members of various religious organisations because 'gay marriage' is their red line.

Lawmakers may quote the constitition's bar on religious interferance and our UN Human Rights treaty obligations to justify speedy passage of a Bill to Ammend the Commonwealth Marriage Act 1961.