>>In the same breath as they demand gay marriage they also condemn marriage as a worthless, outmoded institution.<<

I don't think marriage is a worthless, outmoded institution. I just don't see why gay people shouldn't be allowed to participate in it.

>>Of course there are always those who cannot accept the democratic decision.<<

No there are not. Every commentator I have seen, read or listened to on the topic seem pretty convinced that if the ACT allow gay marriage the Federal Government will not respect the ACT's democratic decision and seek to overturn it in the High Court. Why can't these people respect democracy?

Cheers,

Tony

Your own example does not disprove what I said. You are possibly the one exception to the rule.

There is some grandstanding going on in the ACT. It is a federal law.

Suseonline>> Sonofgloin, there are many marriages that don't 'procreate' already.
Do we condemn those who are infertile or too old to have children to never being suitable for marriage?<<

Suse I only stated the "reason" for the concept of marriage, and that is monogamy and ownership of each other to stop men fighting like dogs over pussy. Combined this with procreation to keep the gene pool alive and you have the “original” reason for a formal union.

Suse>> How will society become 'unstable' if gay people are legally able to marry?<<

I never said that....but marriage as it was conceived is not for homosexuals. A union that gives same sex couples the right to each other’s goods and chattels is the equalizer....not placating some psychological want to be deemed as the same as heterosexuals

Is homosexuality a birth defect?

>>Is homosexuality a birth defect?<<

No.

Cheers,

Tony

Tony, why you answer in the negative (though expected of you)?