"Mount your arguments against gay marriage, therefore; but leave out the claims that you “just don’t believe it’s right”. Whether you would like it, or even approve of it is irrelevant. Show harm, or you have no basis to deny civil rights to all."

Yes! Thank you for a clear, reasoned and well argued article.

And that's a great quote about the tyranny of democracy.

Good morning Briar Rose!

Well this is a very strange situation. For James to argue civil rights injustice based on majority dictate to minority as wrong, he is defeated from the start on this one. Apparently my counter view is in the 60/40 minority (according to statistics of Gay activists) therefore I win; thanks James.

I do wonder why the state still has any involvement in marriage, gay or otherwise. Medium to long term unions are now covered by a range of legislation relating to wealth distribution, domestic violence, wills and probate and so on. In these circumstances, why not let marriage be a private matter between two individuals without any involvement of government at all? Celebrants, religious or civil would need to be free to refuse to marry people if their religious beliefs are offended. Otherwise, let a thousand unions bloom.

Briar Rose: thank you for the kind comment. =)

Diver Dan: well, it's not that simple. If the majority won't let the minority do something, it's not necessarily a rights situation. If the majority won't let a minority do something that the majority IS allowed to do, and there's no compelling reason to not let them do it, THEN it may be a rights situation. While it's tempting to boil issues down to 'the minority wins', nothing in life is actually that simple, and that's not the argument I presented.

You are correct; my post was intended to be facetious. The problem with the Gay argument is one you neglect to mention: I.E. the irrelevance of the gay marriage debate. Your example of Aboriginal rights to vote highlighted a legitimate and urgent issue of genuine social anomaly and is not in the same “ball park” of social relevance.

Gays enjoy the same freedoms as all in our community under the law now and could not genuinely claim discrimination under any human rights charter. Their claim for same sex marriage rights is simply a facetious nonsense; and on those grounds I worded my comments to which you objected.

Could I suggest though you devote your valuable time and talents to the defence of more deserving causes of the minority element in society: Those who are genuinely discriminated against in communities and in employment prospects for example, to the disabled of all genders and sexual leanings, to race discrimination and the myriad of other minorities with a genuine cause! The minorities not necessarily seconded by the popularist Bob Brown and his Greens/Pink brigade of the moment.

There should be no call for "gay marriage" it really is just marriage.

I'm yet to see a single reason from denying that all citizens be treated the same in this regard. Marry whoever you want, it has no impact on you or your marriage/relationship.

Diver Dan again provides no reason to deny the right to marry to everyone. If it's so unimportant to be 'facetious nonsense' then just allow marriage for all.