I don't believe that there is a left or right in modern politics; just an up or down, or good or bad policy; albeit, there are a few recalcitrant red neck pea brain bigots, with entrenched views; that will never ever be modified by factual evidence.
They get by by simply ignoring that very evidence and their own serious shortcomings; as they sit, in Godless self appointed judgement! There are none so blind---
If Jesus was here, he would likely ask the self appointed un-anointed bigots, "just who was it, who gave you the right to speak in my name"? The day of final judgement falls on us all!
That said, all real social advancement is achieved by a series of small steps. Civil union unities couples of any sexual disposition in wedlock.
If we simply took the word marriage, [holy wedlock,] out of the debate and replaced it with the words wedding and wedlock, we would arrive at a place we could likely all agree with, and once that was achieved, rusted on and or socially acceptable, we could substitute with the term Gay Marriage, which would still differentiate between traditional marriage, [holy wedlock,] and same sex unions.
I just don't get all the fuss, over a form of words.
Everyone extant on the planet has an absolute right to the pursuit of happiness, even those born crippled, left-handed or with any other birth defect or aberration, some of which we might remedy or cure, with more knowledge and advanced treatment.
We really need to stop punishing other human beings, simply because they are born different. Enough already! Rhrosty.

...A very oversimplified psychology is used by the pro-homosexual lobby to effect, which states that any opposition to any “part” of their unusual cause, which prevents them affecting a total domination of debate, will be manipulated by them to purvey falsely, adherents to the counter argument as homophobic.

...An insidious and alarming extension to the original tactic of over-simplification splits the Christian church into two distinct camps, and labels opponents of homosexuality incorrectly as right wing evangelical radicals.

The older I get the more cynical I become about 'social reform', which increasingly identifies as code for 'social liberalisation' - pushing moral and behavioural boundaries towards the point of 'anything goes'. This is not reform, it is social anarchy, and its detrimental effects are seen in the leniency afforded to sporting personalities who are found to have used and/or marketed in drugs, or to have committed rape (including gang rape) or to have bashed their girl friends, compatriots, bouncers or mere bystanders. All too often such ill behaviour is further 'countenanced' by their being welcomed back into 'the code' - where 'justice' ought see them ostracized.

Such libertarianism/leniency is also increasingly extended to untrustworthy financial advisers, investment bankers, speculators and shonky businessmen - even to politicians and lame-duck parents.

As societal fragmentation is driven by the explosion of 'social media' purporting as 'connecting' but increasingly resulting in isolation and distancing from society at large, and even from family and direct community, the age-old generation gap is becoming a crevasse. Reality TV does NOT = reality.

The author's quoted survey responses to Gay Marriage need be taken as indicative only of response from the gay lobby, and this whole question is one which should definitely NOT be left to the politicians, but should only be determined by national plebiscite.

Pelican posted at 11:19am 4 May:
>>In the US the right-wing religious fanatics liken universal health care to communism.<<

Is it only me that finds it contradictory that religious fundamentalism increasingly attaches itself to the right-wing, and hence business-end of politics, rather than to the people end (ie Labor/Democrat)? Is not religion primarily FOR the people, and FOR social equality? (Gay Marriage does NOT = equality, it = distortion.)

Pelican,

Why does a homosexual need the title of "marriage" in order to be able to show "love and commitment"!?

Same sex couples already get basically the same rights as others, in terms of property, tax etc. This took place on 1 July 2009! So the whole marriage debate is not about being discriminated against, or being denied the right to have a recognised relationship. They have the rights they deserve, so please don't tell me they're somehow being treated as second class citizens.

This debate is about homosexuals wanting to redefine a word that does not need redefining. They've managed to win the PR battle and get the public on board by repeating the words "EQUALITY" and "LOVE" Ad infinitum, but this doesn't make it so. Homosexuals deservedly have rights and benefits, and they're allowed to love each other so this isn't about equality or love. All they want to do is redefine something that's already been defined. I can sympathise with the other commenter above who said that it's a contradiction in terms.

It's similarly irritating as the "Christian" liberals who want to call themselves Christian but do not believe in God. Why are you trying to redefine the word? Who gave you the right to redefine what already exists? Come up with your own word to describe yourself! And the same should be said to the gay community- you're welcome to have your civil partnerships and you're welcome to have rights. But if you want the right to call your relationship a "marriage" all you're doing is trying to argue that a square is in fact a circle.

btw, great post Saltpetre.

Trav

Your argument is circular. “Gays can’t marry because marriage is between a man and a woman” begs the question of WHY marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman. Marriage is a social construct, so as society changes, definitions of marriage may change. Otherwise, we’d still permit polygamy and concubinage (there’s plenty of both in the bible!).

And why the left-field insult directed at “liberal” Christians? Who are these Christians that don’t believe in God, and how are they relevant to this debate? Or, are you implying that Christians who don’t agree with you aren’t “real” Christians?

Bwahaha looks like Gays are going to inadvertently save the institution of marriage by providing support for a practice which is being shunned in droves by heterosexuals. Oh, the irony of it all.