>>Does that mean you lot are finally giving us heterosexuals the break we so long for ?<<

Why should it be up to them? Can't us heterosexuals take some personal responsibility here and give ourselves a break? All we have to do is not concern ourselves overly with their lives in the same way that we don't care much about the lives of other random strangers. Instead of getting all hot and bothered and jumping up and down about gays doing gay things we just let them get on with doing gay things and don't make a big song and dance about it. F'rinstance, instead of fighting tooth and claw against gay marriage we just let them get on with it - by not sticking our beak into the personal lives of strangers we give ourselves a break.

It's not exactly rocket science. I cannot understand why some people struggle so much with this one.

Cheers,

Tony

There you go DD if live your own life and stop interfering in others lives, that have absolutly nothing to do with you, life will be calm and spiritual which you appear to want.

G'day Kipp...
...I won't come to your wedding if you don't mind...Cheers

Individual:
...First time I've seen you out of your depth in a long time...

I fear there is something wrong with the psychology of this whole gay marriage debate. One the one hand we see prominent (or liberated) gays reveling (or being strident) in their 'difference' - and yet at the same time hounding the rest of society for the label of 'sameness', by way of 'marriage'. A curious dichotomy.

Some gay-minded argue that withholding 'marriage' from gays amounts to persecution - and argue accordingly that this discrimination is somehow responsible for a disproportionate rate of gay suicide or other mental disturbance. Somehow I suspect that such psychological difficulties may relate primarily to the shy and closeted gays - those who are troubled by their difference, and who cannot bring themselves to fully accept or embrace it, let alone revel in it. To me, this is a much more serious aspect than pandering to the confident and strident gays agitating for 'equality', and is requiring much more serious attention and research by relevant health professionals and educators.

Gays must be allowed and supported to be OK with their difference, but they are after all different, and that is not about to change, no matter how much we attempt to manipulate the playing field.

Live, and let live. We allow, and encourage them to live, and they allow us to do the same. We offer no less to immigrants from a different cultural heritage, but we also expect them to conform to our fundamental societal values. All human, but of many colours.

As for Tassie attempting to be the gay-rights, prostitution, abortion and euthanasia capital of Australia, this would be a poor substitute for developing effective niche industry singularly appropriate to the natural attributes of this island state. Perhaps hops, medicinal marijuana and such, as well as top quality dairying, seafood and Eco-tourism? Perhaps also including some grand hotels, casino and golf courses? Maybe Lara has her heart in the right place, but just in need of some quality entrepreneurial advice.

diver dan,
I'm at a loss what you mean. Perhaps you didn't get the gist. I said as long as the other team keeps promoting their sexuality instead of just living their life then they're dragging us into this pointless debate. Marriage is between a man & a woman, that's all there's to it. You need to find yourself another word for it because marriage is already taken. You don't call yourself heterosexual because you aren't, you call yourself homosexual because you are. See the difference ? They're definitely different words. Same goes for marriage. You are different, you insist on being seen as different but you don't accept a different definition for intimately living with your male partner. If you want a traditional marriage certificate then marry a woman. Otherwise just get yourself a service log.

One notes that Jesus preferred the almost exclusive company of men?
Spoke with complete candour, almost as if around 95% of his usual audience were total illiterates, who could neither read or write?
And, even went to some lengths with analogy to ensure he couldn't be routinely misrepresented or misunderstood?
Was gentle, kind, concerned and never ever married?
Were he to walk amongst us today, many would JUDGE him to be gay? Or a long haired hippie evoking universal love, or doing unto others as you would have done unto yourself?
Going out of your way to be the unsung unrewarded good Samaritan, as a way to live; and or, never ever allowing difference to be the final arbiter of how you treat or react to strangers!
The only time he lost his cool, was when he allegedly whipped the money changers out of his Father's House.
He and his followers never ever built massive edifices or places of worship, but simply met and broke bread in each others' homes; and, used any surplus to actually assist others, or the less well off.
Were he to walk amongst us today, he simply wouldn't recognise the simple message idealism and the philosophy he allegedly founded; in the plethora of Churches replete with fire and brimstone pulpit pounders? [Sinful stone throwers?]
Instead he would probably take to the obscenely wealthy hoarders of donated or stolen treasure? And armed once more with that whip, roaring out a message that has stood the test of time for millennia? "That one cannot serve both mannon and God"?
Or indeed, follow his evocation or Christian example, by knowingly and quite actively discriminating against difference, or the least amongst us!
Rhrosty.