Any marriage between any two people is not the same. However, to legislate based on gender is discrimination.

Ian Robinson's sole reason for referring to his godfather is to try and show that he is not biased against gays, but his attempt to define marriage is far from rational, and more on prejudice. That he feels it celebrates a heterosexual union, does not mean that it should.

You don't have to be religious to be bigoted.

Nunner said....."simply put marriage was God's idea not man's." Oh YEAH! when did you have a chat with him last:) Did he have a cup of tea, what was he wearing.........Nunner! Your just the best lol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atTSwau9fwM&feature=related

And this is all you are Runner...Just an angry religious person.

LEAP

Oh and this one,s my favourite....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BaGHKe5oi0&feature=related ..Runner, you do realise the bible was made by man, dont you? You know, I thought all humans were born free! but not if religion has any-thing to do with it, hey runner:)

Yes! lets all suppress whats not yours:)

Yawn!....now! where was I?....Oh yes......equal-rights all.

NEXT!

LEAP

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEt20PgKmcU&feature=related

This shows clearly whats in the bible....word for word:)

enjoy.

Gay rights Australia.

LEAP

BPT:“Lexi:Where same-sex marriage has been introduced Christian charities have been forced to shut down. So it does hurt the community if you have politically-incorrect eyes to see.”

They have – why – and how can I get some to shut down because many are nothing but misery for profit leaches on society hiding under a shroud of secrecy and disgusting govt funded discrimination. Sorry BPT it’s just good for me to let that one out now and again.

Pericles:”It even has the "some of my best friends are gay" smokescreen that so many religious objectors use, the old "I'm not homophobic, but..." routine.”

Hey I liked that bit – especially when it turned out to be like the mothers uncle. Not too close not too far away. Seemed almost respectable since he wasn’t reported to be a sexually active gay as the “late companion” had not been around in Ian’s lifetime. The story could almost make it to the Disney Channel.

Yes “adventurous” and “confused” both fit I guess Is Mise… funny and I wonder what their kids would call them.

Leap babe, quit hitting post before you’re finished.

I'm not convinced.

I've been following the gay marriage debate for a while, hoping someone will outline the objective basis for the 'no' case. In a free society, laws restricting behaviour require a strong justification. The onus is on opponents of gay marriage to justify their position.

Most recent opinion pieces have been from the usual religious and other conservative figures saying 'we don't like it', or 'God doesn't like it'. The better articles make some attempt to persuade everyone in the community, rather than just fellow conservatives, by raising practical objections supported by evidence, although I haven't seen anything convincing yet.

So I was pleased to see an article presenting the 'no' case from a leading rationalist. At last, someone who isn't just trying to impose their own values on everyone else. However the argument is unconvincing --- 'Marriage symbolises the bonding of male and female for the purpose of raising a family. Therefore marriage should only be between a man and a woman.' In a sense the argument is derived from the biology of reproduction. However marriage is about the community in which the family lives. Support, love, commitment, nurturing and the search for happiness.

To convince me, the 'no' argument needs to explain why a same sex family is different to a man-woman family, and why it shouldn't be celebrated and cherished by its community in the same way. In particular, the 'no' case needs to explain why the children in same sex families (there are many) should consider their family to be unworthy of such standing in their community.