Sorry, my previous post belongs to another thread ("Ethics should be a course for all pupils : Comments"). Please ignore.

Ken,

Your arguments contain quite a bit of twaddle.

Here's one.

The Nazi's in the beer halls of Munich in the 30's were socialists just like the modern day Labor Party and their greens henchmen.

Here's another.

In a traditional hetrosexual marriage it is common to have two partners that define the marriage.ie A husband and a wife. Are homosexual partners in a marriage to be required to nominate which is the husband and which is the wife?

It seems to me all this discussion and nastiness about marriage could be simply solved by making it a legal requirement for everybody to be united in a non-religious Civil Union and leave marriage to be conducted by the Christian Churches should that be the desire of hetro-sexual couples.

There then eveybody has the same legal rights and recognition and traditional marriage, which in modern times has been the preserve of the christian churches, is confined to hetrosexuals as an add on with no additional legal rights.

You know, it's not the Churches who are trying to alter things for the rest of us, as you try to suggest. It's the homosexual community that is trying to foist it's lifestyle, which the churches see as an abomination, onto the the churches traditions.

Your sort of silly twisting of facts is one of the reasons most of us regard this push by a very small minority as containing much that is simply illogical and stupid.

Since the knives are out for Joolya don't you wonder how long it's going to be before she drops her principled stance on marriage and backflips, just like Kevvy did over 'his greatest moral challenge'.

A marriage is at core a legal contract recognising a serious commitment on the part of two adults to each other. It has significant consequences relating to mutual obligations to each other, to property rights in the event that the contract is dissolved or one partner dies, etc etc.

Clearly the term marriage has become loaded with all sorts of emotional overtones relating to its very long history. But it seems to me that these aspects can be set aside if we look at it as a legal contract.

Doing that makes it clear, doesn't it, that any adults of sufficiently mature age should have the right to enter into a marriage contract, and to benefit (and be obligated by) the terms of that contract.

to history buff,
the organised christian right is attempting to flex it s political muscle to restrict the freedom of others hence my criticism.
muslims are not trying to take over political parties and inflict their values in a constricting manner

to rhian, wake up and look around at the influence of the christian soldiers, high youth suicides, alienation , response untrained chaplains in schools, how about putting trained counsellors and mental health workers rather than paying off the christian right.
we are in a struggle between religious bigotry and remaining an open and free society.
minorities being prosecuted, its amazing when christians were fleeing the horrors of communisms the church heirachy breached tolerance for refugees, when its muslims fleeing the horrors of the taliban the churches are silent.

<<Why is it that mainstream politics baulks at the provision of the same rights and protections for homosexuals?>>
Why is it that homosexual activists baulk at the provision of the same rights and protections for incestuous couples and polyamorous groups?
Do they do so only so as not to undermine their credibility or would they actually deny loving incestuous couples and polyamorous groups the same "fundamental human rights" that they are demanding?
Either reason seems hypocritical.
Just how inclusive are homosexual activists anyway?
Not very, it seems.

<<Why is it that a homosexual's love of their partner is not afforded the same status as a heterosexual's?>>
Why is it that an incestuous person's love of their kin is not afforded the same status as a homosexual's by homosexual activists?

<<We say that human rights provide equal recognition and protection without discrimination on the basis of sex, religion, age, political beliefs, race or sexual preference.>>
Why do homosexual activists exclude those whose sexual preference is for multiple partners or for kinfolk?
What possible objection, other than not wanting to taint their cause, could homosexual activists have to two adult brothers or two adult sisters wanting to marry?
Why should they be denied, by homosexual activists, the same "fundamental human rights" that homosexuals are seeking for themselves?

It is profoundly hypocritical for homosexual activists to demand their own "right" to "marry" without embracing the cause of people with other sexual preferences.

How can they limit eligibility on the basis of sexual preference when they are seeking to expand eligibility on the basis of sexual preference.
They can't.

I personally believe that homosexuals would have no real problem with incestuous or polygamous marriage except insofar as the acknowledgement of that fact would harm their own cause.

Come on.
Get real.
Two blokes.
Two brothers.
What's the difference?
They're hardly going to produce genetically deformed children.
Stop the pretence.
But then the game would be revealed.

The promotion of this perversion just leads to more disease, more death and sends a very poor message to future generations. Many in politics have already their consciences seared. Otherwise they would not swap partners so regularly, live in sin or agree to murder unborn babies on mass. A conscience vote in Parliament is a joke. Look how many lies the current Government told before the election. Someone with a unseared conscience could not lie as regularly as this mob do.