'the moral obligation of our time' should read the immoral perversion of our time.Don't you love how the social engineers twist normal for perverted and evil for good with such confidence in their language.

AlGOREisRICH and runner are right, this gay marriage BS is all about insulting Jesus and perversions. ALso right on about Maximus, Gladiator was a good movie IMOP.

James, thank you for a well thought out contribution to this debate.

I wish I could say the same of most of these posts.

Those of you who responded saying 'put it to a referendum', could you please read an article before bothering to post on it? Jees, was it too long, or did it perhaps have too many difficult words for you?

Ditto to the poster who said gay people must 'prove the benefit to society' from this change.

And Runner, your drivel is hardly worth mentioning anymore.

Sigh. Gay marriage affects about a million people in this country, who don't need to prove anything to the homophobes of this world. Discrimination doesn't get legitimised by popular opinion, but even if it did, popular opinion isn't even on the side of the homophobes anymore.

Just step aside, losers, and let Australia rejoin civilisation.

Wow. So we should listen to a discredited American activist judge? I note the emotional anti-Christian arguments too in this weird post. So because some Catholic wolves have infiltrated the church, all Catholic views must be dismissed, even when we know that boys need fathers (not two mothers). The author wouldn’t dare speak to Muslims in the same light, of course, because he is a hypocritical atheist

James

I doubt the majority would change a fundamental Australian value if another just as fair solution was advanced.

Make Civil Unions compulsory for all. Leave marriage to the churches. Marriage becomes an add on with no extra benefits except for those who value and uphold christian beliefs.

This discourse doesn't pander to swing-seat politicians. It panders to Labor Party needs to minimise the Greens votes in the traditional Labor inner-city seats.

The Labor Party are wedged by the Greens push in this issue.

It's nothing to do with anything else.

I think you'll find freedom results from democracy and our western culture has dealt with it's problems and injustices over many centuries precisely by putting democracy first and following the will of the majority. That's what has happened in all those instances you've quoted.

Lincoln used democracy to achieve freedom for a minority. The age of equality and freedom already existed, he and the citizens of the US simply supported and extended it.
Segregation in the US was ended by people voting for the parties which were willing to implement it. This extention of freedom followed the democratic process.
Equality of women and indeed historically the original process of allowing women to vote followed a democratic process.

Do you think Mandella would have been jailed in a democratic society? South Africa was a dictator Apartheid regime with little in common with western values.

Consesus it not the be all and end all of Australian politics. It is to the Labor Party who continually betray principle for politics.
Didn't Julia dump the community forums on climate change?

Your views are based on cock-eyed argument. When such misinformnation is presented to the population any proposal for Gay marriage will be defeated by a desire of the majority to stick to not only a logical and well presented case but also and to a tried and true formula that has always worked reasonably well.

That's the reason gay marriage proponents don't want democracy to decide.

Stop being so... rational, keith.

>> Leave marriage to the churches. Marriage becomes an add on with no extra benefits except for those who value and uphold christian beliefs.<<

The problem inherent in a solution such as this, is that it leaves the bigots and ranters nowhere to go.

We are already living in a society where any relatively lengthy relationship is deemed a de facto marriage for legal purposes. So if the government simply tidies these rules up a bit, then backs right away from the discussion, the marriage/no marriage bit then becomes a simple matter of religious tolerance/intolerance.

If you [insert your preferred pairing here] can find a church that will join you together "in the eyes of your God", then by all means do so.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1569248/Indian-man-marries-dog.html

And if you can't, there's no point in whingeing to the government. Your religion is, after all, your own personal choice.

As is your [insert your preferred pairing here].