If homosexual "marriage" is legalised it is only fair, reasonable and just that:
Child marriage,
Incestuous marriage,
Polygamous marriage,
Bestial marriage,
be legalised.
Why should people who want to marry children, their kin, multiple people or animals continue to suffer from the same "discrimination" that "gay" people suffer?
There are vastly more cultural and historical precedents for child marriage, incestuous marriage and polygamous marriage than there are for homosexual "marriage".
Pakistanis commonly marry their first cousins.
Children in Islamic countries are routinely married off.
Men in Islamic countries often have multiple wives.
All of the above are increasingly occurring in slowly but inexorably Islamifying Western countries.
There is no logical or moral basis for the claim that homosexuals in Australia have the "basic human right" to marry over and above similar claims by paedophiles, incestuous or polyamorous couples.
In the same spirit, practitioners of bestiality should also enjoy the same social recognition and opportunity for happiness.

If poofs want to get married why cant the one who wants to be the wife just have a sex change

Then nobody woud have to change our holy laws

Proxy, constant repetition of rhetoric doesn't actually make it more convincing. It certainly doesn't make it a deductively valid argument. And the only case in which you'll find folk who might consider absurd rhetoric like this:

"If homosexual "marriage" is legalised it is only fair, reasonable and just that:
Child marriage,
Incestuous marriage,
Polygamous marriage,
Bestial marriage,
be legalised."

to be convincing is when you're preaching to the choir. Thankfully, it's a very small choir.

Why don't you just admit the truth, Proxy: you don't have any logical reasons for opposing gay marriage, you just don't like gay people very much. Your opposition to gay marriage is based not on reason, but on gut instinct - on emotion. There's nothing inherently wrong with having illogical beliefs; everybody has some, even me, and it is no more my place to force the Teachings of Surak onto others then it is theirs to force their views on me. However, it is highly disingenuous of you to claim that your position is based on reason when it is actually based on your gut feelings. And it is quite absurd to claim that arguments based on gut feelings carry as much weight as those with a basis in reason.

"If poofs want to get married why cant the one who wants to be the wife just have a sex change"
-Huggins

Because you're a complete bloody idiot, that's why.

"Then nobody woud have to change our holy laws"
-Huggins

Nobody is proposing changes to holy laws, just the secular ones. Offences against God are not the concern of man. This is why blasphemy is a sin but not a crime.

Thats not very nice Riztoo and u also didnt answer my question.

Proxy wrote: “There is no logical or moral basis for the claim that homosexuals in Australia have the "basic human right" to marry over and above similar claims by paedophiles, incestuous or polyamorous couples.”

Actually there is, and I believe I already covered that above...
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11169#188821

The comparison is invalid.

"Thats not very nice Riztoo and u also didnt answer my question."
-Huggins

No, it isn't very nice. Neither is calling homosexuals poofs. Matthew 7:5, champ: "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

In answer to your question: homosexuals are not transexuals. Consult google or a dictionary. If two male homosexuals get married, neither wants to be the wife - they both want to be the husband. Finally, gender reassignment surgery is fairly radical surgery - it's expensive, and it carries the risks inherent in all surgery, such as post-operative infections and death. Isn't it a tad unreasonable to suggest that people undergo radical surgery just so they don't offend your religious beliefs?