If homosexuality is such a positive lifestyle why does the evidence show the opposite?
For quite sometime now, we have been bombarded with messages telling us that homosexuality is just another lifestyle; equally as valid as any other in our society. Any opposition to this view, especially in public, is generally met with hostility, with the “offender” being branded as judgemental, homophobic or an extreme right wing fundamentalist.
No one is allowed to raise questions, such as:
 Why are homosexuals not permitted to give blood through the
Red Cross?
 Why do homosexuals have the highest incidence of HIV
in Australia?
 Why do homosexuals have a high incidence of anal damage
and anal reconstructions?
 Why do homosexuals have a high incidence of anal cancers?
The reality is many people have been lulled into believing the lie that the homosexual lifestyle is okay and that homosexual marriage has to be legalised.

The SMH and ABC are performing true to form -- promoting their radical agendas, but censoring out traditional views and values.

Re Vanna's comment, "Hommosexual marriage may be necessary to decrease the rates of STDs...", is she expecting us to believe that homosexuals would become less promiscuous if they signed up for so-called same-sex marriage?

Secondly, has she forgotten that homosexuals were responsible originally for spreading a fatal STD that is now known as HIV?

Dear Simon,
So now polls decide what should be lawful?

And polls are accurate barometers of public sentiment (given how Julia Gillard's popularity has waxed and waned within a week of polling, with no new policy to explain the change)?

No, you are mistaken if you think that most Australian Christians are in agreement with the case FOR gay marriage.

Marriage is - and should remain - defined in law as the lifelong union of a man and a woman.

You are entitled to your opinion but don't purport to know what Christians are thinking.

Please persevere with the following analogy:
I have always been an avid fan of the Olympic Games. Indeed for much of my life I badly wanted to participate in the games. But looking at the standard definition and requirements, I could claim discrimination because the requirements exclude me. I don’t have any sporting prowess and couldn’t even run to the corner of my street, but I still badly want to participate. I am sure there are others out there who would claim “discrimination” with me. Maybe we could get together and start advocating for our rights and protest about the discriminatory requirements needed to participate.

Maybe if our little group dug our heels in, over time more people might join our little band, sympathetic to our cause and pursuit of our rights. After all we are people too and how dare that bigoted Olympic committee discriminate in this way?

Maybe in time, we would even succeed and get our own way, participating in our first Olympic Games by legal right, having all those who opposed us arrested for hate speech. But would all the millions of spectators world wide watching on TV and the internet agree that they were watching the Olympic Games? I think not.

There are other qualifications for marriage that same sex couples don’t seem to quibble with – the requirement that you can’t marry a close relative, the requirement that you can’t marry someone who is already married, that you can’t marry someone who is too young. How long before these aspects of the definition of marriage are being challenged?

Same sex lobbyists argue that the definition of marriage is open to change. By this reasoning, their own definition of marriage will change to become something different in the future. What if any future push for change comes from pedophiles, also arguing that the definition of marriage is changing? Or maybe the next push will come from the bestiality lobby group. If the definition of marriage is ever changing, then no one would ever have the right to claim that their definition is the correct one

To DavidL and others who seem to dislike rules of any kind, remember that laws are there to protect people. So the laws surrounding marriage protect children by providing the best environment for them to be raised - with a father and mother. Removing those laws and allowing the re-definition of marriage might serve the selfish interests of some, but it doesn't serve the interests of the children. There are plenty of studies showing that the best place for a child to be raised is with their biological parents.

So many feeble excuses.
- Some people can't tell the difference between dogs and human being's. Amazing how often the topic of dog's comes up in these discussions.
- Marriage is a spectator sport, observers won't enjoy it as much if some rules which don't actually impact on peoples ability to have a loving relationship are not enforced.
- Marriage is just about the protection of children (how about we arbitarily disolve the marriages of all hetro marriages where there is no children of that marriage living in the home).
- Hetro marriages will somehow go bad if other consenting adults are allowed to marry.

Pathetic excuses to try and continue the marginalisation of people with different sexuality to your own.

Perhaps a better idea to work out why hetrosexual marriage has gone so wrong for so many (including a lot of religious fundies) and spend a little less angst on denying access to other consenting adults.

Maybe some could spend quite a lot less time thinking about gay sex (and or bestiality) and put more effort into getting your own house in order.

R0bert