Robal,
Pro Gay marriage advocates are prejudiced against opponents of Gay marriage to a far more extreme degree than conservatives are against homosexuals.
See this isn't about straight or Gay people it's about ideology and political power, there is no other aspect to the campaign, it's simple Cold War style bickering between two opposing creeds based on two toxic ideologies.
Nobody from either side is considering the side effects of their actions and I for one am concerned for the effect this change in procedure would have on Gay men. Does anyone still remember the tragic story of comedian Matt Lucas and his partner?
The risk of suicide among men who have just broken off a long term relationship or ended a marriage is elevated tenfold, male marriages will be short, the divorce rate will be high and the suicide rate among Gay men will rise.
The GLBTI movement is run by Marxian Feminists ,they don't give a damn about men in general, if Gay marriage is approved are all married men and separated men in crisis situations going to be treated equally?
Presently the institution of marriage is under the exclusive sanction of "traditional" communities, are the GLBTI people going to share power and respect the views of traditionalists or will they only escalate their campaign to eradicate such views and traditional communities? If the push for Gay mariage fails no one will have lost anything and a state of detente between the two camps will exist, if the pro side wins they will seek to destroy the naysayers.Given the level of hostility in your post and those of Kipp and Suse you give me little hope of "Marriage equality" should the marriage act be altered to include homosexual unions.
See your side openly hate and agitate to eradicate Christian and conservative thinking and customs, but conservative Christians don't even go near talking about eradicating pro homosexual views and customs.

All that has been put forward yet again, are the broken record unscientific personal opinions of a few activists, dominated and led by a large rump of leftie political 'Progressives', that gay marriage MUST be legislated to be a carbon copy of State regulated hetereo marriage.

At the same time those who put the 'initiative' forward also contend that marriage is stuffed as an institution anyhow and they have no regard for it at all. In fact the feminists and 'Progressives' who want to dump hetero marriage on gays have been vigorously denouncing marriage for years, arguing among other things that marriage is patriarchal and offensive and the State should stay out of bedrooms. Why then do they now want to foist it onto gays?

No mention of any unintended consequences and no survey of homosexuals to ensure that the majority want or even appreciate the State regulation and control of gay relationships that has already been brought in by feminists and 'Progressives'.

Yet the same feminists and 'Progressives' who made such a mess of de facto provisions now want to apply more of their State regulation and control to gay relationships and lifestyle. The bait is that State institutionalisation of gay relationships might do something positive somehow. How exactly? Because some multimillionaire talk show host, here today gone tomorrow, makes her gay marriage part of her show to appeal to an easily impressed female TV audience who believe in 'the one', big hair, fairytale marriage and last but not least, free presents?

There is big money for lawyers in applying laws affecting heterosexuals to gay relationships. Also, radical feminists and the comfortable cafe latte set who comprise the political 'Progressives' get to boast of another feckless ideological win. Serial activists find some other placard to wave about. But what exactly do the majority of gays get out of it except State legal and bureucratic interference in their lives forever along with the threat of expensive lawyer bills?

Jay of Melbourne and On the Beach, what ever personal negative issues you have experienced in life; taking your anger/fustration out on others will not help you; go and speak to someone.

I mean that sincerely.

Jay & onthebeach have hit the nail squarely on the head. Furthermore, nothing in their posts even hints at anger / frustration other than possibly in attempting to communicate with 'welded shut' minds. It is good to see the tired old line 'Studies have shown that persons who have a strong homophobia attitude, are inclined to have latent homosexual tendencies themselves' trotted out yet again. There was in fact only ONE study, and anyone who cares to read the original report will discover a very different story than that promoted by the homosexual camp. Not to worry, who would ever dream of allowing the truth to interfere with a good story ??

Kipp,

Why should I be labelled as having 'negative attitudes' just because like so may Australians I want the Marriage Act to stay as it is?

Up until very recently the homosexual community were seriously offended, horrified, by any 'negative' suggestion that the State 'breeder' laws be applied to gays. That was regarded as needless State interference in gays' personal privacy and rights.

Now you want to switch, to flip-flop, so anyone with the termerity to hold an alternate view is suddenly 'negative'. That is a bit rich.

I happen to agree with the view long held by homosexuals before younger trendy gay activists recently joined forced with the feminists and leftie 'Progressives', that queer lifestyles should be outside of the constraints and sameness of society.

In fact I reckon gays will rue the day they were led by the nose by those interests, who have such a sorry record for telling others how to lead their lives and passing laws for more State interference in the private lives of citizens. They have a sorry record of complete stuff-ups and for refusing to be held to account for any of them. While I am not gay, I reckon you had lifestyle options and choices that were worth preserving. In this one the gays are in the mud pool with some nasty saltwater crocs. Your choice of course.

.

Dear Jay Of Melbourne,

.

You wrote to Suseonline:

"Watch the video, it makes sense, women want men to do what they want them to do and they use shaming and coercive language to get what they want ...".
.
The "video" is an interesting sociological document.

The way I read it, the woman says sour grapes ("Are you gay?") when she can't get what she wants. But this deals a terrible blow to the self-esteem of the narrator who is deeply hurt by this unexpected challenge to his manhood. He sees himself as the victim of a machiavellian stratagem developed by womankind in order to gain dominance over men and maintain them in servitude.

For the narrator to extrapolate from what was, for him, a somewhat traumatising experience with one particular woman whose advances he rejected, is indicative of his attitude towards women generally.

Perhaps the "Are you gay?" should be completed by "Are you paranoiac?".

It is a common feature of nature that the males of animal species generally seek to dominate the females and maintain them in captivity. We human beings are no exception to the rule. This prehistoric practice persists, even today, in certain cultures in the Middle-East.

At the same time, we men seem to harbour a deep-rooted inferiority complex with regard to women. We try to dominate women but women are more powerful than us. Women can give birth. We can't. Moreover, our lives depend entirely on our mothers for far longer periods than for any other animal species.

As a result, our mother occupies a very special place in our psyche.

Our vision of other women is even more complex. Not only are they intimidating by their unique potential to create, but they also possess the power to seduce and bewitch. And, to top it all off, they are "disgustingly impure".

And if women are strange creatures, what about homosexuals who are even stranger - neither totally men nor totally women ?

The female fruit is treacherous. Bisexuality, homosexuality, and asexuality are perceived as straight-out aggressions and a danger to mankind.

.