rehclub,

Sorry, but you have failed to answer a very simple hypothetical.

Also failed in not discussing this on another forum where your 'quaint' ideas could be investigated to a greater extent.

That's it for me. You are just not worth interacting with.

You can live in the past and that is your prerogative. Better you than me.

See ya

David

PS Answer the hypothetical about imagining you are gay intelligently and I may reconsider. Emphasis on the *may* as I live a busy life and nonsense is a time waster.

Well, I worked with a gay butcher once, didn't know he was gay at first.

He told me being gay was caused from a hormone imbalance, I suggested this may be able to be reversed, he didn't want to consider the thought.

As for your hypo question, there are some situations I simply won't entertain, being a peoadafile is another, simply won't go there.

You seem to be offended by my opinion on gays, yet I have told you many times I have nothing agains them, I dont except what they do as 'normal', but then that's my choice and it is by no means meant to be offensive.

I hunt animals at times, you may find that disturbing, but again that's your choice.

Marriage is my primary concern here, and there is an alternative, but you lot just won't accept that as you want to intrude into something many of us see as sacred.

I have found our discussion interesting and would be happy to continue, but that's up to you, however, I will not change my position, and you should know that if you do reply.

rehclub,

"As for your hypo question, there are some situations I simply won't entertain, being a peoadafile is another, simply won't go there."

Linking those two very clearly demonstrates your bigoted mindset. Paedophilia is a dysfunction with the perpetrators abusing power. Homosexuality is one of the variations of human sexuality and is consensual.

It might interest you to know that most gay people if not harassed by the likes of your ilk don't want to change any-more than you do. In fact, suggesting someone can change is ridiculous. If you are straight, you could not change it by any known method and neither can gays.

You are a minority and an embarrassing one at that.

Goodbye

David

rehctub you write:...'I don't approve of what they do, but I don't hate them, nor do I interfere. ' I ask you, What do gays do? Do all heterosexuals 'do' the same things? No, and there's just as much variation in what gays 'do'. I've read a paper that reckoned anal sex is more common among heterosexuals than gays, because it's a fail-safe way of not making babies. I hate anal sex, and all the gays I know do too. So where do you get the idea there's some sort of homogeneity? But we've gone off topic. The point is that if a government makes laws that discriminate against a group of citizens, then that is a health risk for those discriminated against. The health risks in this case include: depression and suicide because such a law encourages other citizens such as parents, teachers, religious leaders and other homophobes to abuse them with verbal and physically abuse [gay bashing and murders and other hate crimes...] that cause depression, self-harm and suicide. Because of this, whether or not you think marriage is sacrosanct, surely it is better to remove discriminatory laws. In this case, all we have to do is eliminate the word 'marriage' from the political lexicon, and leave marriage to religions who must be free to marry whoever they please. Every citizen would then be covered by 'civil union' legislation and no one is discriminated against. Clever eh?

ybgirp, yep, you're right.

So, if it works for you, then go ahead, but as I say, being recognized by law is very different to being accepted.

No doubt, if you have your way with marriage, you will then fight for acceptance.

Good luck with that one.

....The point is that if a government makes laws that discriminate against a group of citizens, then that is a health risk for those discriminated against

Well, this case is different as the law was in place prior to the gay marriage debate.

Gays are now challenging that law. Perhaps when the word marriage was first recognized would have been the appropriate time for this challenge.

....Every citizen would then be covered by 'civil union' legislation and no one is discriminated against. Clever eh?

Or, simply find another word for gay unions. Why change our world, when we are quite happy with the way it is.

AFA
For the record, I do not associate gays with peds, it was merely an example.

If it was a poor one, I apologize as no link was intended.

While I may not support gay marriage, I dispose peds, or rock spiders as they are often know as.

However, it's strange that molesting fathers often get swept under the carpet and cause no where near as much fuss.

How can you have a greater breach of trust, than a father praying on his daughter, yet fewer seem to care.

As for wanting to change, I didn't mean that, he suggested it was a hormone imbalance, something I suggested may be curable.

But as I say, it's not a topic that occupies too much of my time, unless marriage is the subject.

rehctub -

Another word cannot be used, otherwise it keeps same sex relationships as separate, not equal.

When women fought for the right to vote, they wanted to vote - and not for it to be known as another word!

It's all just "marriage". There are many different kinds of marriage - interracial marriage, Jewish marriage, Catholic marriage, re-marriage of divorced persons, civil marriage.. why can't there be gay marriage too?

Catholic churches refuse to marry people who have previously been divorced. Any church will be able to refuse to marry same sex couples if they feel that this does not work with their religion.

But two thirds of Australians choose to marry in a civil ceremony, by a celebrant. Why on earth should same sex couples be excluded from this, merely because your vocal minority disagrees with the concept? If your church doesn't like it -they don't have to marry any same sex couple.