>>everyone must be forced to acknowledge that homosexuality is normal, good, acceptable, virtuous and noble.<<

Nobody is asking for that. It would be silly. We're just asking you to recognise that homosexuality is not abnormal, bad, unacceptable, immoral and ignoble. In exactly the same way that heterosexuality is not normal, good, acceptable, virtuous and noble OR abnormal, bad, unacceptable, immoral and ignoble: it just is. Your sexual orientation doesn't inform your sense of ethics: it just determines who you're attracted to. Like heterosexuality, homosexuality isn't a sign of good or bad character. There are arseholes on both sides of the fence - but in my experience the nice people have the bastards well outnumbered.

As for the question of gay marriage: we are who we are and we love who we love. Why shouldn't two consenting adults be allowed to subject themselves to the horrors of marriage if they're crazy enough to ask for it? So far all the reasons why not boil down to three basic answers: a) It's against my religion. That's nice but your religion isn't everybody's religion. We live in a secular democracy so is it really fair that your religious beliefs are protected in law while those of other faiths are disrespected? Try again.
b) Gays can't have kids without outside help. Neither can a lot heterosexuals. And a lot of other heterosexuals can't have kids even with outside help. Not to mention all the ones that just don't want. Arguments against marriage that can apply equally well to homosexuals and heterosexual don't really count as arguments do they? Try again.
c) Innate bigotry. They'll dress it up in lots of fancy words but once you get right down to it a lot of the opposition stems simply from the fact that some people don't like gays very much. What can you say in the face of that sort of bigotry? Try again.

I'm still waiting to see a convincing argument against gay marriage. You're welcome to try.

Cheers,

Tony

Tony Lavis: "We're just asking you to recognise that homosexuality is not abnormal, bad, unacceptable, immoral and ignoble." But that is logically the same as "normal, good, acceptable, moral and noble"! You want everyone to think that way, and if they don't they must be homophobic and bigoted according to your ideology. But I say we have every right to disagree with you on a matter of morals, and we have every right to to say that homosexuality is immoral without being called homophobic or bigoted for simply speaking our mind.

If homosexual marriage is legislated, it is likely that the masses will not have freedom to disagree with you in public on this matter of morals and homosexuality will be promoted as normal in the public schools. There would be moves to force non-government schools and religious organisations to hire homosexuals etc. The implications for freedom of speech and conscience are enormous. Totalitarianism under the guise of toleration would be a real threat. This alone is a very strong argument against gay-marriage.

It’s not clear what point Jay of Melbourne was making (August 13, 12:43:43 pm, p2 of comments) but if he was referring to “convictions for sodomy” in the days when the Roman Catholic Church, joined at the hip to tyrants throughout the 17 centuries from the days of its inception in the fourth century, ruled the roost he should not indicate that he was responding to my earlier post on the same page.

I was referring to its blood-soaked history of torture and execution for dissent (not specifically for homosexuality) and to its consequent lack of qualification (and the lack of qualification of those who choose to take up its cudgels) to bleat about its being “bullied”.

It would take a mountain of words to tie the point down to eliminate misrepresentation totally, but the above will have to do

Homosexuality is natural. Like other deviations from the norm, those with same-sex orientation probably have as much control as children born with an extra digit. However "Homosexuals" are as diverse a group as "Heterosexuals" with same range of character & personality traits.

Ditto it might be argued paedophiles, sadistic rapists, even psychotic serial killers have similiar lack of choice over their "hard wiring". Ultimately it's not the orientation but the acting out.

Australian society has become hugely tolerant of homosexuality since my young adulthood when evidence, admission or mere suspicion of being 'gay' invited serious negativity. I believe most people accept it as part of the wider human condition, that what happens between consenting adults in private is their business - even if for religious or cultural reasons, many consider homosexual practices abhorrent or morally wrong. Most people take a live and let live attitude and many, including myself support civil union rights.

Many of us however still oppose formal marriage on religious and cultural grounds. We are as entitled to our POV as the most strident Gay Activist.

I'm seeing similarities to Anti-abortion activists in the Gay Marriage campaign. Increasing militancy and acts of intimidation towards those who oppose the 'Holy War' against so-called discrimination. The backlash doesn't surprise me. It's also being played like the "Racist" Card. You oppose current levels of immigration? Racist xenophobe! Oppose Gay marriage? Oh you heartless homophobe ..! Be warned - moderate people are growing increasingly resentful of the intolerance being practiced by those demanding tolerance.

People in same sex relationships, please, quietly get on with the business of loving, living, working and planning for your future (like the rest of us) and accept the limitations of your biology - or pay for it yourself. Children are not a 'right' and in best case scenario belong in a biological family with BOTH parents. Marriage in the cultural and legal sense is between a man and woman and begetting of children ditto. Whilst people often marry without expectation of children and children are frequently born outside of marriage or marriage like relationships is immaterial.

if the anti 'gay ' marriage was nearly as homophobic as the 'gay ' lobby is Christophobic then we would of been locked up a long time ago. In fact the 'gay 'lobby is also familyophobic despising the natural order of kids having a dad and mum.

Marriage has been defined as between a male and female for a long time. It is a cultural institution derived from biological factors but then we are no longer captured by biology, so OK, ban State marriage and make it personal only. Gay will be followed by others who feel "oppressed", multi-partner combinations, those who like sheep and why not, inflatable dolls and ?robots?. It's turned into a waste of time, Traditional Married can be for those who want it, so can Gay Married and etc.. Not like there are any tax or benefit implications any more.