<<What possible business is it of anyone else if two homosexual people want to marry?>>
--What possible business is it of anyone else if three people want to marry?

<<Homosexuality is not illegal is it? Why then is homosexual marriage illegal?>
--Polyamory is not illegal is it? Why then is polygamous marriage illegal?

As demonstrated by the paraphrasing above,
your argument has no logical basis.

@ suzeonline.
So what's next on the agenda for homosexual activists?
Will a change in the marriage act be a sort of peace treaty to end their war against heterosexual "normative standards"?
Given that lowering the age of consent was a founding principle of the "Gay liberation" movement in Europe, where it all began, is the "emancipation" of children from "oppressive" heterosexual norms the next taboo to be smashed?
I'm asking you because you support "Gay" marriage, which must mean you are an expert on the subject.
Let's read from the old "Gay Manifesto":
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1751204/posts
The very first line of the very first point for action read thus.

"The oppression of gay people starts in the most basic unit of society, the family. consisting of the man in charge, a slave as his wife, and their children on whom they force themselves as the ideal models. The very form of the family works against homosexuality."

This is a very good article that addresses
an aspect of the gay marriage debate that
I don't think I've seen discussed before.

No politicians consulted their electorates
when the Howard government cynically amended
the Marriage Act with the spineless support
of the ALP. A great majority of them probably
just assumed that amending the Act to avoid the
possibility of gay marriage was 'good' for society,
or in the case of the gutless Opposition,
uncontroversial enough that nobody would notice
their support for a clearly discriminatory legislative
amendment. I wonder what quid pro quo the ALP
members received for their backing of Howard's
homophobic amendment?

Now that it's clear that the amended legislation
has provoked a concerted backlash in the community
by gay activists and those of us who oppose
discrimination on the basis of sexuality, MPs
of all persuasions should take note and vote
with their consciences when a Bill is presented
to Parliament.

Unfortunately, with a couple of notable exceptions,
this discussion looks like it will go the way of
every other discussion in this Forum that concerns
homosexuality - it will just provide a platform
for the strident and repetitive expression of
hateful and fearful sentiments about homosexuality
and gay people, from the same old tiresome purveyors
of bigotry.

The practical issue, rather than the moral one, that I have never heard mentioned is tihs.

Since equal numbers of men and women are born each year, each gay man represents a woman who won't find a husband.

As I said, it's not a moral argument, just a mathematical one

@Talisman,
That, Sir/Madam is what we call a rhetorical reply to a question nobody asked.
The Pro "Gay" movement uses force and coercion every day of the week, you've just done so yourself by labeling us bigots.

Were Stephanie Rice and Jason Akermanis subjected to coercion, blackmail and the use of force earlier this year?
Does the reaction to the NZ TV advert this week constitute a use of force, coercion and blackmail (Gay youth suicide..again)?
The "Gay" movement has at it's foundation the sexual liberation of all people from they tyranny of the heteronormative family unit starting with children.
Short version: Destroy families.
Saying that the early movement thought and writing praising pederasty and the destruction of families is of no relevance to the present "Struggle" is like saying the Declaration Of Independence had no influence on the American Revolution or that Mein Kampf had no influence on the Third Reich.
As I posted in the other thread, I don't even need to mention homosexuality, homosexual practices or social problems in any indictment of the "Gay" movement to sell my story.
All I have to do is repeat back the information the movement itself produces for public consumption and the illusions and false assumptions about "Gays" fall away.
If I wanted for some reason to mount an "Anti Gay" protest I'd be on the corner handing out photocopies of the Gay Manifesto, not some "Hate Tract".

@ Jay of Melbourne, at least my comment
addressed the content and argument of the
article. Yours is just another anti-gay rant,
just as I predicted.

QED.