>>I am sorry, but I simply can't accept one man penetrating another's anus as normal.

After all, if you are a believer in god, he would tell you himself that the act of sex is the humans way of multiplying. Don't you agree

Now on the other hand, if you don't believe in god, surely you agree that the act of sex was intended as a way for us to multiply, it's just that many choose not to conceive.<<

Notice how he doesn't mention one man penetrating a female's anus? An act of sex which is just as likely to lead to conception as two men having anal sex? And thus his bigotry is revealed: he has no problem with buggery, just with gays.

>>Now as far as supporting gay relationships, even unions, go right ahead, but the term 'married' is simply not available, as it is taken.<<

>>I will support it, what ever you come up with, but you simp,y have to accept that the word 'married' is off the market.<<

How many times is it now that I've explained to you that in our language words cannot be 'taken' or 'off the market'? English doesn't work like that: it never has and unless you can provide some credible evidence to the contrary I see no reason to assume that it will start working like that in the future.

TBC

2012 is the 200th anniversary of Dickens' birth. I encourage you to go to your local library, borrow one of his books and have a read. They are regarded as classics although personally I find them a little dull. But they should demonstrate to you a fact that I would have thought would have been obvious to most people: English changes. The English that Dickens spoke and wrote in is markedly different to the English we use today - and the English we use today will be very different to then language they're using 100 years from now.

Continuing to repeat the silly idea that once words are taken to have one meaning they will have that meaning forever when Blind Freddy can see that's not the case isn't an argument against gay marriage: it just displays a deep-seated ignorance about some very basic facts about our language.

>>we are simply protecting the sacred vows we took and we are not prepared to allow our valued values to be shared by gays,as marriage to most of us is sacred.<<

And it couldn't possibly be sacred to gays could it? Because they're just not like us are they rechtub? I certainly hope they're not like you.

I hate to break it to you but gays have way more commonalities with straight people than they do differences. They do share your valued values: they have the same basic human drives, cognitive abilities and emotions and when they are children - when their primary social development occurs - they are treated just like very other child because their sexuality has not yet manifested itself. Other than which sex they're attracted to there is no meaningful difference between straight and gay people. Except that I've never met a gay person who holds a grudge against straight people just because they're attracted to the opposite sex.

Cheers,

Tony

56 comments on the ins and outs of gay marriage while over in the Middle East Israel is weighing up whether or not to start nuking Iran! A question of priorities, eh?

I reckon nuclear war outweighs the never-ending demands of a tiny group to have their sexual peccadilloes legalized.

You're right David - the Australian government should simply legalise same sex marriage as it is clearly the right thing to do, and all the evidence suggests it will do far more good than any possible harm.

I agree that the debate is a waste of valuable time and resources.

Once same sex marriage is legalised it will become normal, just as interracial marriage has, and the right for women to vote (both argued strongly against in the past by "defenders" of "traditional values") and we can get on with solving the other problems of the world..

So come on Pollies - legalise it already!

AFA, at no time during my participation on OLO, have I mentioned anal sex.

Your words, not mine. It is simply something that does not occupy my time.

I guess my saving grace is that even if you lot do get your way, I, and many others for that matter will simply defy any such law and not recognize your much fought over accomplishment.

Just remember, having a legal right to something and having it publicly accepted are two different things and I would suggest that most politicians don't care so much about your issue, as much as your vote.

Now that should make you lot feel all warm and fuzzy, hey!

rehclub,

Percentages of STDs in hetero or homosexual people do not change eithers sexual orientation. By this ‘logic’, if it were higher in heterosexuals, then you would be advocating that everyone should be homosexual. Or, at least pay more for medical assistance. Naturally, your religious fellows would reject this idea totally. And you would follow them.

One thing I’m pleased about is you coming clean with the origin of your prejudice. It is religion and how religion has made you so concerned about what goes on between the legs of others. How about this for a novel idea. It is none of your business.

As for DavidG’s comment about nuclear conflict. Two religions – both are right. Most people can concentrate on more than one problem at a time. And religion is the problem in both instances.

Tony Lavis has answered some of your post and I need not reiterate.

You have mentioned anal sex, not me! And now you deny it.

“AFA, at no time during my participation on OLO, have I mentioned anal sex.”

And this below sentence was in the post before that one.

“I am sorry, but I simply can't accept one man penetrating another's anus as normal.”

I am thinking our conversation is not productive.

David