>>"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"!<<

Fail. It's not simply a case of being one or the other. The keyboard that I'm tapping away it isn't abnormal, bad, unacceptable, immoral and ignoble - but it does not logically follow that this makes it abnormal, bad, unacceptable, immoral and ignoble. It's just a keyboard. Trying to assign moral properties to it doesn't really make sense. It can be used as a means to achieve good or bad outcomes but it isn't good or bad by itself. A lot of things a like that: we usually only think of human behaviour - actions, speech and so on as being good or bad and there's a lot more in the universe than human behaviour.

>>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.<<

Sexual orientations are like keyboards in that they're not really good or bad. How can you reasonably assign moral value to somebody's sexuality? Being attracted to the opposite sex isn't noble or ignoble - me liking women doesn't a better person or a worse person. Rudolf Hoess was a committed family man; JFK was a serial womanizer - both clearly heterosexual and at opposite poles of the moral compass. So if being attracted to the opposite sex doesn't make you a good or bad person then why would liking the opposite sex make you a good or bad person?

TBC

You can disagree as much as you like but if your reason for saying that homosexuality is immoral is just because you say so and that's all there is to it then your argument isn't going to convince many people - and it does make a strong case that your opposition is based only on bigotry. Even the staunchest of moral relativists relies on a stronger ethical framework to make their moral judgements than 'because I say so and that's all there is to it!'. On what ethical framework do you base your opposition to homosexuality?

>>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.<<

Epic fail. This is a strawman. Rather than argue the case on its merits you invent a whole bunch of bogeymen and argue against them instead. And if anybody was actually arguing for limitations to freedom of speech or inappropriate state interference in the Church or the affairs of private organisations like private schools other than you I would be arguing against them. But they're not are they? They're arguing for the right for gays to get married. Let's try to stick to the argument at hand and not worry about the unlikely future prospect of totalitarianism. Because while I can't predict the future any better than you - ie not at all - and therefore must grant the possibility that such an unthinkable situation could play out; the probability of Australia going collectively insane and embracing totalitarianism over our pleasant and free society doesn't seem very high to me.

Cheers,

Tony

I watched this clip of this attendant (Rachel) at Chick-fil-A show only grace when she was been bullied by an irate customer supportive of the LGBT movement(who filmed the whole encounter and put it on You Tube) The guy bullying the attendant not only lost his job but a whole lot of respect. Good on Chick-fil-A for saying what they believe and backing it up with grace towards this bullying tactic. Surely anyone after watching must see the irony in this, accusations of hate when love is shown and showing love when the accuser is hateful. Good on you Rachel

So what is a viable argument against Homosexual marriage?
I'm opposed to any sort of state mandated assimilation, so I suppose the process of "Christianising" Homosexuals is dangerous because it seeks to neuter what has traditionally been an Avant Garde sub culture.
Are we going to see middle class married Gays siding with the state against radical Queers and other non conformists? That's a sure bet IMO.
This is all sliding toward Marcuse' "Tyranny Of The Masses", the LGBTIQ rights crowd are censorious and cloying as it is, I can easily imagine what they're going to be like when they have social standing within the establishment. I guess my main worry isn't that Gays will desecrate the institution of marriage with their customary "Edgy" lifestyles, it's that they'll all turn into Cam and Mitchell from Modern Family, I can deal with weirdos and outsiders, that's where I come from anyway, it's the squares who really worry me.
Whither the counter culture?

It is a pity that the discussion has degenerated into the usual pro-gay and anti-gay dialogue. The article is about a business that conducts itself on principles that it has chosen, and the reactions of the public to that choice.

We surely should be discussing whether the author's description of this reaction as "bullying" is apt, and whether the public reaction is reasonable or over the top.

Personally, I think the LGBT movement is shooting itself in the foot over this situation. It is one thing to decide to withhold your custom from places whose ethics you disapprove, totally another to provide them with an excuse to pose as religious martyrs.

But I guess that, as eventually happens to every "movement", they feel that they have to make a statement every time someone coughs. Sad.