Prejudice is an irrational, inflexible attitude
toward an entire category of people, be they
Muslims, Gays, "Boat People," different racial
and ethnic groups, and so on. The word "prejudice"
literally means "prejudged." It usually implies
negative feelings - antipathy, hostility, even fear.

The key feature of prejudice is that it is always
rooted in generalizations and so ignores the
differences among individuals. So, someone who is
prejudiced against Gays will tend to have a
negative attitude toward any individual Gay, in the
belief that all Gays share the same supposed traits.

Despite this gloom, the vast majority of Australians
do not seem to take a hostile view of Gays or any other
group as such. At all levels of Australian society, there
is a remarkable degree of tolerance, if not acceptance,
of people in general as part of our society. Australia's
legal framework also provides for added safeguards. It is
a very small though admittedly a very vocal section of
the Australian community that tends to let its opinions
be known. To them it is self-evident that their own
religion, norms, attitudes, values, and cultural
practices are right and proper, while those of other groups
are inappropriate, peculiar, bizarre, immoral, and even
dangerous.

That should not concern us on the whole. It may be that
the sole purpose in life of these vocal voices - is simply to
serve as a warning to the rest of us on how not to behave.

The difficulty is, of course that under certain conditions,
their attitudes can lead to the oppression of other groups.
And, that should concern us all!

We need a renewed culture of marriage precisely because of the problems of divorce, de facto - 'clayton's marriages' and the threat to destroy marriage posed by advocates of so called Gay 'marriage'.

The last is the most current and most pernicious to marriage because in establishing it you need to destroy what marriage is - between bride and groom/man and woman, etc. and replace it with the entirely novel 'person and person'. Marriage has its own dynamic and meaning and 'person and person' is not it. The etymology of the word itself, as Bishop Elliott of the Melbourne Archdiocese explained to the Senate Committee last year, tells much: "Marriage: from maritus and maritata—husband and wife in Latin. Matrimonio; matrimonium—matrimony; making of a mother. It already has the two sexes written in the whole entomology (sic) of the language"

You put Gay or 'same-sex' in front of that and you render it an absurdity. In fact it fails the basic test of rationality, Aristotle's Principle of Non-Contradiction, in that a thing cannot be both itself and not itself at the same time. Gay or same sex 'marriage' is therefore, in the very meaning of the words utterly irrational and absurd.

Marriage and strong marriages are the bedrock for our future, and that of any nation. They are good for the spouses and provide the ideal public legal, social and emotional support and structure for families, our children and what is best for them. The state/Commonwealth has a vested interest in marriage to raise many and good citizens. Conversely it has no interest in the private relationships of two men or two women.

As a pithy attack on the essential aspect of fertility of the spouses, the critics of marriage say "we let infertile couples marry" and "if fertility is important then we should impose fertility tests on couples before they can marry". Happily this presupposes that conception is possible between male and female, whereas the same cannot be said of two men or two women. The proposed test therefore undermines the argument because of this presupposition.

It seems that there are many irrational people here.

Not surprising because an instructional manual of today contains more than 50% on safety warnings no intelligent person would consider doing e.g. putting a DVD player under running water.

"60% of Australians believe same sex couples should be able to marry. That's 60%."

Scientific facts don't depend on the majority vote. Gay, lesbian marriage is unnatural because it goes againsts the laws of nature.

If the majority of the West thinks this way they will soon be wiped out, as evidence today shows. The birth rate is down and soon the West will self-annihilate.

PT

>> Scientific facts don't depend on the majority vote. Gay, lesbian marriage is unnatural because it goes againsts the laws of nature. <<

No mate, scientific evidence shows that homosexuality is common throughout nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

I have used Wiki for convenience, however established proven research is available from any university, science organisation, government records and so on.

The human race is unlikely to become 100% gay - the rate is about and remains 10%.

WE ARE NOT DOOMED BY GAY MARRIAGE. Twerp!

Lemas

Marriage is not all about reproduction. Many straights marry and don't have children - BY CHOICE. Deputy Liberal Leader Julie Bishop, was married 5 years, does not have children and now lives with her partner.

If legally acknowledged relationships are in fact the "bedrock" for the future of a nation, then it makes more sense for gays to marry than not.

Personally I don't give a toss who marries who, but while people remain discriminated against for their sexual orientation it remains another legally sanctioned act of bigotry.

This is from the same happy bunch that claimed that it was self evident that the sun revolved around the earth, and that men could not have a common ancestor to the ape.

This is one of the most facile justifications for bigotry I have ever seen.

At least it is some consolation that they have stopped burning people at the stake for heresy.

"This is from the same happy bunch that claimed that it was self evident that the sun revolved around the earth, and that men could not have a common ancestor to the ape."
Exactly Shadow Minister, and this happy clappy bunch that yelled out similar nonsense about interracial marriage in the past.

"Columnist and blogger Andrew Sullivan recently speculated that there may be a correlation between states which were slow to legalize miscegenation and states which were quick to ban same-sex marriage. The assumption is that states that banned interracial marriage are fundamentally more intolerant of minorities, and thus the most likely to pursue a legislative agenda that denies legal rights to homosexuals."
http://www.filibustercartoons.com/marriage.htm

And it's the same sickening bunch who justified slavery because Jesus supported it.

Philip Tang thinks that if same-sex marriage is allowed, we will be wiped out. As if marriage causes people to become homosexual! Me thinks homosexuality comes first... then marriage, not vice versa.

All those children in orphanages would really benefit from adoption by childless couples, like same-sex couples. With a huge population that won't be able to sustain itself if it keeps growing at this rate, we would do good by allowing same-sex couples to marry and adopt children.

Get a life, control freaks! Live and let live! If you don't like same-sex marriage, you DON'T HAVE TO get married to somebody of the same sex as yourself.