prej·u·dice

1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.

2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.

3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.

Note the words "without knowledge, thought, or reason" and "unreasonable".

I suppose when you have no valid arguments, all you have left is ignore the facts and spew hatred and intolerance.

Eventually people like you will die off like those opposing slavery, interracial marriage, voting rights for women, etc.

The two longest lasting same-sex partnerships in my direct experience – both in excess of 60 years – were referred to and regarded by the most important people involved, the couples themselves, their families and friends as marriages.

That they survived initial illegality, pernicious social stigma and time is a testament to the quality of the relationships. Were they all still alive today and commencing a life journey as a couple, it is only fair and reasonable that they could enjoy 'legal equivalence' with heterosexual 'de facto' or 'married' couples.

The point has been made by Houellebecq, amongst others: the quality of the relationship is not 'granted' by the legal definitions of words in government statutes but by the actions of the people involved.

That's why I find it amusing that some posters here don't acknowledge that the only threat to heterosexual marriage are heterosexuals.

Sanctity of traditional marriage? Somehow I can't get the examples of Henry VIII or every time now I hear about a divorce, out of my head. Plus, of course any heterosexual poster here who's had sex with more than one person (excluding themselves) isn't, by their exclusionary definitions, legitimately able to claim to be married.

"I think a bit of name calling is acceptable", maybe, but not hateful comment Lego.

'I don't care who marries who, as long as it is legal.'

That's the weirdest comment on here I reckon.

'Even if you do believe that the invisible man in the sky told some guys 2000 years ago or so, that homosexuality was an abomination, then why would it bother you unless a same sex person wanted marriage with you?'

But apparently if the governmnet doesn't sanction it as legal, then that would bother you suze?

Bizzare!

As WmTrevor appreciates from my posts, I cant get around the concept that it matters at all. I suppose because I live the life of a married person and I am unmarried.

Just what does the government have to do with anything? Really?

Should we start asking for them to define who our friends are too?

So that leaves me with trying to understand the motives of the people wanting this grand gesture or symbol. To have their emotional and personal relationships recognised by the governments will make it socially acceptable? Sorry cant see that happening.

Maybe they just want it confirmed in their mind that the majority of the population is in favour of their romantic arrangements?

It might surprise them how few people actually care.

Both sides of the argument disturb me. People who think other people getting married affects them in some way, and people who want the goverment's permission/acceptance (or the populace's permision/acceptance by proxy) of their romantic relationships.

Do gay people not understand that pining for the approal of biggots is actually an act of dismpowerment. Are they afraid to be different. I don't see left-handed people being upset about it.

Some do... but that's because my parrot is pining for the fjords - not the approval of bigots. [Though secretly I prefer to think of them as little ots]

Left handers have had to argue for equality also--needing our own scissors, ball point pens, writing desks (in universities, mainly), playing cards; needing accommodation in work arrangements, such as on assembly lines; having problems with social mores (especially in Asia--in China it's considered rude to use your chopsticks with your left hand) and prejudice from psychologists. There were the sandbags on arms in primary schools, to force people to write with their right hands....

But we have never had to fear for our lives on account of our handedness, as gay men have had to on account of their sexuality. And still do, even in Australia. The fear of being assaulted when walking peacefully down the street--that is enough to create a desire to see every form of discrimination, anything that suggests that their sexuality is an inferiority or a moral fault, eliminated.