Individual what is normal? My understanding is that it means Usual,Regular or Typical. Free from mental or physical disorder.
Gay people have been a part of the normal since time began.
The question in return is "Are you regular"!!

"Are you regular"!!
Kipp,
Nope, at least I hope I'm not.

'I don't believe marriage is to have children. I believe marriage to be between two people of opposite sex.'

Ah, so you're admitting that, apart from its purely legal function as a property-sharing contract, the 'meaning' of marriage is a social construct, meaning different things to different people?

Thus, if to someone else as marriage is between two men or two women, then that's just as legitimate as individual or Trav's different meanings.

Looks like we're getting somewhere.

Clownfish,
To come up with such petty wording you'd have to have to be heavily influenced by an academic background.
A union called marriage is between a man & a woman. If you want a union between two me or two women then call it something else. Calling it a marriage is degrading the word marriage.
You lot always invent new words & phrases whenever you're cornered so why not come up with a word for yourselves ? Leave us heterosexuals out of it & stop insulting us by claiming same status.

AJ,

As you're well aware, in a previous discussion we had, your disappointing actions led me to seriously question your desire to have a reflective discussion: Strongly implying dishonesty on my behalf, and after being shown evidence of your mistake, continuing sarcastic criticism of me, and flatly refusing to do the honourable thing and apologise.

As a result, I became more convinced than ever that you are here only for one purpose: To egocentrically and very close mindedly proclaim your point of view.

I do not have anything at all against you personally, so please quit patronising us all with laughable nonsense about "schoolyard bully", "character assination" and "abusiveness".

I am just doing the right thing by other OLO users: I owe it to them to warn them in advance of your superfluous massdebating.

Trav,

There was nothing wrong with my actions. I simply called you to account for what I believed at the time to have been a deliberately-pulled, intellectually dishonest trick; the kind of intellectually dishonest trick we see pulled by theists (almost exclusively, in religious debates) on almost a daily basis here on OLO - as I had pointed out to you at the time - so it was understandable that I would suspect you of pulling such a trick too. It was nothing personal but, understandably, you took it personally. I would too.

I did post a very cheeky response after you cleared things up to show that there was still reason for suspicion but, at the time, didn’t realise how inadequately I conveyed the impression I meant to (now that I look back and read it again): that I was still giving you the benefit of the doubt.

<<... and flatly refusing to do the honourable thing and apologise.>>

At first, I was a little confused as to what you meant here as I had stopped reading the thread after my last post. But after taking a look through it now, I can see what you mean... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12050#209591

So I am sorry that I accused you of such intellectual dishonesty and while the evidence did tend to suggest that my suspicions were wrong, I believe I had still provided sufficient reason to maintain some level of suspicion. But I’ll forget that and, again, say I’m sorry.

I can understand now why you think what you do of me, but that still doesn’t excuse your behaviour since then, nor does it make your claim about “doing the right thing by other OLO users” much more believable. Your intent was clearly malicious; not to mention childish considering I was in the middle of a discussion with someone else here on OLO and hadn’t even addressed you. The mature thing to do would have been to ignore me, but it appears you have far too much of a nasty streak in you to do that.