Pericles.
No contradiction in my post whatsoever,I'd read that article before you see ;). "Gay" marriage is part of the agenda of an aggressive global imperialist movement which also terrifies the gentle souls of the world, makes a mockery of human rights and seeks to impose the worldview of a European elite upon the entire globe..like Nazism it's a vision both great and terrible.
Are you saying that the proponents of "Gay" marriage haven't bullied, cowed, blackmailed and humiliated their opponents into submission or that craven continental politicians haven't sought to "appease" them?

.

Dear Mark (Christensen, the author),

.

You wrote:

"The current political model has taken American civil rights far and wide. Australia has had a similar experience. But it can't go all the way, and believing so is morally and intellectually corrupt".

I understand "civil rights" to mean the "the personal rights of the individual citizen". They include the ensuring of peoples' physical and mental integrity, life and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, colour, ethnicity, religion, or disability. Civil rights also include freedom of the press, assembly and movement, as well as individual rights such as privacy, the freedom of thought and conscience, speech and expression.

Which of these civil rights do you advocate limiting, why and how ?

You then add:

"It is this message – not bigotry – that motivates much of the opposition to gay marriage."

Would you please provide your evidence supporting this statement ?

Judging by the media, most of the opposition to gay marriage is based, rightly or wrongly, on religious considerations - even when expressed by members of the judiciary and the politicians.

The recent riots and demonstrations in France are an example of this.

The Catholic Church, among others, states that, while it does not condemn homosexuality, it considers "homosexual acts" as "contrary to the natural law" and that "under no circumstances can [homosexual acts] be approved."

The Church is, of course, making the same mistake as it did when it declared that the sun revolved around the earth:

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

The Institution of marriage was not invented by religions. It pre-dates all the major religions by nearly 20 000 years.

It is a common feature in the animal kingdom for males to compete for the right of access to females for mating purposes.

The instauration of marriage simply civilised this process.

The clergy later seized on the institution of marriage as a means of increasing their influence and control over their "flock" of submissive "sheep" and its future progeny, thus assuring the prosperity and perpetuity of their religions.

.

Totally agree with you Jay,

Divide and conquer is the ploy and chuck all the foundations of liberal western civilisation foundations in the bin. The loud minorities are vapid, clueless and ultra individualistic me me's who have no concerns for societal order,stability or real culture.

Here's some interesting insights in Der Spiegel regarding what's recently happened with the leftist socialist government in France who quickly installed the same-sex ruling without consulting or debating it with it's people. I think it's pretty ruthless and totalitarian. And the globalisation new order is becoming very scary to your ordinary person. True, it all makes a mockery of human rights(which has become "illiberal" and victimisation obsessions going on today.
Hollande has divided France in two:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/german-press-french-vote-to-approve-same-sex-marriage-a-896287.html

Same goes for Spain where the socialist government there did the same and as a consequence birth certificates no longer state "Mother and Father" but instead "Progenitor 1 and Progenitor 2". Doesn't sound natural to me! What do you reckon?

So much for living in a democracy. All is caput.

Even funnier, Jay of Melbourne. You're clearly on a roll here.

>>"Gay" marriage is part of the agenda of an aggressive global imperialist movement which also terrifies the gentle souls of the world, makes a mockery of human rights and seeks to impose the worldview of a European elite upon the entire globe...<<

Indeed. I can sense the community's terror every Mardi Gras parade, as they cower in their houses waiting for that knock on the door, or in their shops in fear of a Gay Kristallnacht. Those GLBTI stormtroopers in formation, marching up William Street.

>>..like Nazism it's a vision both great and terrible.<<

What an imagination you have, to think that these perfectly ordinary people, from perfectly ordinary families, with perfectly ordinary life aspirations, could possibly pose a threat to you, in any way,shape or form..

"chuck all the foundations of liberal western civilisation"
Ah.. that'd be foundations like tolerance of diversity. freedom of expression, equality before the law.
Constance you obviously have no understanding of the principles that you say you wish to defend. If you did you would be supportive of marriage equality.

Banjo P: "The Institution of marriage was not invented by religions. It pre-dates all the major religions by nearly 20 000 years."

For many people marriage is a sacrament administered by a church while secular/state issues are secondary in importance. Nothing will change that. Which churches oppose gay marriages and which don't should be a matter for churches.

The State, on the other hand, should stay out of the way and the 2004 amendment of the 1961 Commonwealth of Australia Marriage Act 1961 to include “Marriage, means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life." should be rescinded.

In fact I think all legal reference to the term "marriage" should be replaced with "civil union" and leave marriages and their attendant ceremonies and solemnization to choice. Why all the Gov't required certification should be completed at a wedding ceremony is beyond me when it is a secular, administrative a matter.

My position does not make me a proponent of "gay marriage", nor does it make me an opponent. I think this is where most sensible people stand. All we need is the legislative changes to reflect this.