Homosexuals, a small minority of the population, can do as they please in private, can talk about themselves in public, and have any sort of relationships they wish to have – except marriage. Marriage is clearly and legally defined, and it should not be changed to suit a minority. Politicians, as usual, think that they should be able to make decisions to change the status quo based on their own ideas. They should not do so without consulting their electorates. However it is assumed by homosexuals and their apologists that vociferous public rants and lobbying by a minority will be enough to force politicians to allow gay “marriage” at some time in the future. Given the appalling way that our politicians have trashed democracy in Australia, there is a real fear that this will happen.

People often say, “What difference will it make to you if homosexuals are permitted to ‘marry’?” The answer, of course, is nothing individually, but a hell of a lot to society and what we think of our society. There is already too much weight given to the tantrums of individuals and anti-social minorities in what is supposed to be a democracy. Any surrendering by politicians to a way of life that is not natural, just for a few lousy votes, could very well be the last nail in the coffin of civilised society. Homosexuals (they are not ‘gay’ in any sense of the word) are already in our faces too much; and it is democracy that allows them to carry on about their affliction and demand that the rest of us bow down to them. It is also democracy that allows the rest of us to say that they are entitled to do as they please without interfering with us or bring down our society, but do not dare to try institutionalising their way of life. We can also say that they are childish, self-centred bores for they way they carry on.

A majority doesn’t support marriage ‘equality’. Australians have become indifferent, and that’s another problem to be solved.

Marriage equality? No Rodney,marriage DIVERSITY. The laws will probably change but the result will be many variations of marriage,not one:
Heterosexual Male/Female.
Heterosexual Female/Female
Heterosexual Male/Male
Homosexual Female/Female
Homosexual Male/Male
Heterosexual Male/Homosexual Female
Heterosexual Female/Homosexual Male

I'm sick of typing so I won't get into the bisexual,queer and transgender variants but from a society with one form of marriage will arise a society with over a dozen forms of marriage.
And just because the idea of two heterosexual people of the same gender seeking to marry sounds far fetched doesn't mean it won't happen, now is that equal to any other type of marriage given that the motivations behind all these unions are different?
I would also assume that if such legislative changes were made that the LGBTIQ acronym will be amended to HLGBTIQ because all things being equal so to speak it ought to include the "H" for Heterosexual right Rodney?

Hey, Jay, we are throwing out the baby with the bath water to please all the growingly, sexually-confused people.

Is this how the New Year is to start? Does anything mean anything any more?

What would you call a person who is sexually drawn towards mushrooms? A Mushy-Humper-Crumper?

Our world gets sicker by the day!

In truth and in fact, 'marriage equality' is the loss of homosexual rights. Loss of freedom to do what they choose.

'Gay Pride' activists are young Turks with attitude and no sense of history. It is all about them. They have no appreciation of the valued 'outlaw' queer lifestyle. They have sold gays out to the political 'Progressives' whose socialism decrees State control of everything and who are constantly dabbling in social re-engineering for the goals of international socialism.

There is no surprise at all that the most strident supporters of 'gay marriage' are radical feminists and declared political 'Progressives' aka Fabian Socialists, who openly declare that they would dump marriage tomorrow if given a change. As if either movement has a soft spot for male gays. That is laughable. They are about their own secondary agendas as usual.

The institutionalisation of gays, the State regulation and control of their relationships, has already been achieved through the back door changes affecting de factos. The (culture) war has already been won by the political 'Progressives' as far as regulating the private affairs of gays is concerned.

Where gays could previously form and break relationships as they wished, gays are now subject to the same family law affecting heterosexuals whether they like it or not. There is escape from that. They are corralled after being led by the nose.

Bluntly, government bureaucrats and courts now mull over and decide the status of their once private relationships, and public servants and courts also decide when those 'de facto' relationships are over and how their income and assets are to be distributed on parting ways.

Fill out this form an you will be told what the status of your relationship is, whether you agree with that or not.

to be continued..

contd..

Older queers - before they became 'gays', might remember a time when they lived on the edge, away from the regimented and controlled 'straights'. When their private relationships were not pried into by government bureaucrats and courts, when they themselves decided the status of their relationships and could go about their lives out of public scrutiny, and when they themselves were adult enough to be capable to decide and agree on who owned what.

'Gay marriage' is just the icing on the cake as far as the radical feminists and political 'Progressives' are concerned. Gays are corralled by State regulations, after being led by the nose. The older queers, especially the jazz-loving social outlaws must roll their eyes at the arrogant stupidity of gay activists.

Gays only ever wanted to be left alone to get on with their lives, safely and without interference. But that is the exact opposite of what the constantly interfering radical feminists and political 'Progressives' are about.

'Gay Pride' were sold a pup (hubris is their Achilles' Heel). The lawyers are laughing all of the way to the bank.

Marriage is an intrinsically dangerous and expensive occupation which should not be visited on anyone: hetero, homo, transgender, transsexual, hermaphrodites or domestic pets.

Dear Onthebeach,

Good on you, excellent posts!

Dear plantagenet,

Please don't confuse between Marriage and "Legal Marriage". They got nothing to do with each other.

Marriage in the true sense is a wonderful thing, so it must be Legal Marriage that you described as "intrinsically dangerous and expensive occupation which should not be visited on anyone".

Government should not push its dirty claws into our private loving relationships.

I am all for marriage equality: that everyone of any gender (whether they even have a gender) may freely marry any one(s) of any other gender(s), but let it have nothing to do with the state and let no legal records or documents be made about it.

In fact, even one's gender, if there is such a thing, should not be registered by the state in the first place. Who gave them a right to look in our underpants?

Dearest Yuyutsu

This whole issue of gay marriage (now under the guise of "marriage equality") is precisely about Legal Marriage under State and Federal laws.

Yours in anthrax

Pete

yep 'equality ' for a small percentage of people choosing a lifestyle while complete child abuse for kids being denied a mother or father by the social engineers.

ASHES JOKES

Not to diminish the seriousness of the article. The following is slightly Off Topic but an essential List of Anti-Pom Ashes Jokes. After years of losing to the Poms we can now rub their noses in it. Enjoy :)

1) What do you call an English cricketer with 100 by his name? A bowler.

2) Why can't the English open bottles? Because they don't have any openers.

3) What do you call an Englishman with a bottle of champagne in his hand? A waiter.

4) What do you call a world class Englishman? Retired.

5) What is the main function of the English coach? To transport the team from the hotel to the ground.

6) Why are English fielders always healthy? Because they never catch anything.

7) What did the spectator miss when he went to the toilet? The entire English innings.

8) What's the English version of a hat-trick? Three runs in three balls.

9) What is the most impressive footwork displayed by an English batsman? The walk back to the pavilion.

10) Why are the English demanding increased match payments? Someone has let on that the matches go to a fourth day.

11) What do you get if you cross the English cricket team with an OXO cube? A laughing stock.

12) What’s the height of optimism? English batsman putting on sunscreen.

13) What’s the difference between an English batsman and a Formula 1 car? Nothing! If you blink you’ll miss them both.

14) What do English batsmen and drug addicts have in common? Both spend most of their time wondering where their next score will come from.

15) What's the difference between the Pommies and a funeral director? A funeral director isn't going to lose the ashes.

16) What is the difference between Cinderella and the Pommies? Cinderella knew when to leave the ball.

Happy New Year

Pete

When will these people get a life and move on.

Marriage is between a man and a woman, get over it.

Nobody is telling you you can't get hitched, so go ahead and get hitched, but do it in your way, not our way.

If gays think their union can be anything like equal to normal couples marriage, then they are simply wasting everyone's time, and money, as each challenge or attempt to get their acceptance is using valuable time and money that is needed to fund far more pressing issues than two of the same sex wanting to marry.

On the bright side, NZ is close enough that they can toddle off and get married and, they can even come back home and be married, IN THEIR MINDS, but marriage between same sex couples WILL NEVER be accepted as equal in this country.

It's simply time to accept the facts and move on.

Rehctub , marriage equality is inevitable in Australia, just as it has happened in other countries.

Why?

Because unless you are overly religious, or just a plain bigot, no one else really cares whether gay people marry or not, because it won't make one damn bit of difference to any one else!

Notice how at no stage in his article does the author say
a) what "marriage equality" is
b) why some sexuality and not others should be entitled to governmental registration.

The entire article and arguments are based on the factually incorrect claim that homosexuals cannot marry. This in turn is based on the factually and legally incorrect assumption that marriage is a thing constituted by the government.

Not even the government claims that marriage is constituted by the government; and nor has the church ever claimed the same for the church.

Both the state and church have only ever claimed that they recognise for their own purposes, a marriage brought about by the actions of the parties in taking each other to spouse.

It is this exchange of vows or undertakings to be faithful and look after each other, which is the essence in fact and law of marriage; and which registration registers.

It is simply false to claim that gays are not "allowed" to marry. Gays have the same right as everyone else to exchange vows of faithfulness etc. and to celebrate the occasion however they want. And neither is the legal protection afforded to them in property and trust matters any worse than that to the legally married; in some respects its better.

What they can't do is *register* their relationship with the gubbas.

What no-one will explain is why the government should be registering people's private consensual sexual relationships in the first place?

And what the author will not explain is, if the issue is marriage "equality" then why should not every other form of sexuality have equal "rights" to have their relationship registered by the government, or why?

Unlike for gays, marriage for polyamorous really *is* illegal - it's a criminal offence.

And not only that, but merely uttering the *words* of marriage, is the crime; not just registering it merely impossible. So the discrimination is far more repressive than against gays.

Rodney, as you defending or discriminating against polyamorous marriage?

Plantagenet
"Marriage is an intrinsically dangerous and expensive occupation which should not be visited on anyone: hetero, homo, transgender, transsexual, hermaphrodites or domestic pets."

LOL.

Daniel Reid, author on the Tao, said that the ancient Taoists believed that monogamous heterosexual marriage is "mutually injurious".

The Toll of Gay Marriage on Gays by R.O Lopez
http://englishmanif.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/the-toll-of-gay-marriage-on-gays.html

The Unbearable Sleaziness of Being (a Gay Man) by R.O Lopez
http://englishmanif.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/la-joie-de-vivre-16-unbearable.html

We have had “marriage equality” for generations. All marriages are equal before the law and the two partners to a marriage are equal before the law.

There is no such thing as same-sex marriage. Marriage is and always has been in our society the union of one man and one woman. If a gay man wants to marry, he may do so, and his marriage will be equal before the law to everyone else’s marriage. If a lesbian wants to marry, she may do so, and her marriage will be equal before the law to everyone else’s marriage. If, on the other hand a gay man or a lesbian wishes to form a union with a person of the same sex, he or she may do so. But that union is not a marriage.

The High Court has amended the Constitution so that the federal parliament may create “same-sex marriage”. I expect it will eventually do so, but “same-sex marriage” won’t be marriage at all. It will just mean that marriage itself will no longer have a word to denote it.

No one argued for “same-sex marriage” 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago, including those who act now like it is a pressing human rights issues that deeply concerns them.

The most fascinating aspect of the same-sex-marriage campaign has been its success. The idea is as completely irrational as demanding that parents adopting children be called pregnant on the grounds of pregnancy equality, but by renaming the campaign as one for “marriage equality”, appealing to emotions and labelling opponents as bigots, the campaign has succeeded in having the demand for a change in the meaning of a word being taken seriously as a great question of human rights.

All campaigners for change in our society should study the “same-sex marriage” campaign as it provides a template for success. That applies to all ideas – real and completely off-the-planet ones.

Chris,
The campaigners in favour of legalising pederasty and pedophilia are doing just that and citing "evidence" such as the findings of Dr James Cantor and others as proof.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/doctor-proclaims-pedophilia-sexual-orientation/
Gay activist Michelangelo Signorile writes in the Huffington Post that only "bigots" have a problem with what he calls "intergenerational sex":
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/tom-daley-is-20-years-younger-than-dustin-lance-black-so-what_b_4397666.html
Signorile wilfully distorts the widely held bias against very young people being the sexual partners of much older men, he's saying that the Dirty Old Man accusation is "homophobic" if leveled at Gays.
Do you see where this is all heading now? When this "Marriage equality" scam first became a mainstream talking point most thinking people were asking ourselves what would be the next phase of the Liberation struggle, of course it's the campaign to legalise sexual activity between adults and children, which anyone who's even looked at the issue knows has always been a part of the Gay agenda.

Jay, your comment, though apt and timely, sickened me. That there are such people in our midst is frightening.

What is even more frightening is that such people are uniting and agitating so they can get better access to kids, our kids, to fulfill their sick sexual demands.

The public is being steam-rolled by these noisy immoral creatures and sections of the Media who are into depravity.

In ten more years, what will society look like? Will parents be able to treat their children as sex objects? Will pedophiles be able to use the "I WAS BORN THAT WAY" defence? Will no animal be safe from human lust?

It has been said that Rome fell apart when it became ammoral! We seem to be walking down the same road.

Help!

David G,
Sort of puts the actions of the Russian government into perspective now doesn't it?
Here's another article at which we can point in horror and it's chock full of links too:
The Pied Pedo Piper:
http://therightstuff.biz/2013/12/29/the-pied-pedo-piper/
There's no "What If?" here, Rodney Croome wants us to follow the examples of other countries, well sir, after marriage equality this is where the LGBTI lobby are taking the struggle in Canada,the U.K and the U.S.
Historical context? Here we go then:
The Sexual Revolution and Children: How the Left Took Things Too Far
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/the-sexual-revolution-and-children-how-the-left-took-things-too-far-a-702679.html
The reason that propaganda is working is that homosexuals are such a tiny minority of the population that normal, well meaning people think that they understand them because they might have met "one of those", a co-worker, a relative say (and they've seen that person on their best behaviour at the time) that they have an understanding of what the Gay movement is all about...they don't, they have no idea.

Troll central here today. Ick.

Jay,

Homosexuality and child abuse are not the same thing. My objection is not to same-sex unions or to legal recognition of them but to the attempted theft of the word “marriage”.

...And of course the greatest media exponent of gay rights and the normalising of homosexuality, is the ABC. The ABC should be urgently tied down and hauled back on their preaching for the cause!

...Below is just more example of why, lifted from one of your links:

...# Mark Newton, who manufactured a baby with an illegal Russian surrogate, and then used the child he bought as an international sex slave, said it was an "honor" to have been a gay father, as he was sentenced and sent off to prison…

...He was profiled by Australia's ABC in 2010 as the idyllic example of same-sex parenting, beneath a headline, "Two Dads Are Better than One."… http://www.smh.com.au/national/named-the-australian-paedophile-jailed-for-40-years-20130630-2p5da.html He and his husband, Peter Truong, probably felt that the toddler was experiencing pleasure with penises in his mouth, since the experience was pleasant for the adult getting a blo jb.#

Omitted: Link reference complements of Jay of Melbourne in the above post.

Diver

the link you supply make me want to vomit. To think our 'family ' friendly ABC would use as an example of 'idyllic ' homosexual parent does not surprise me.

Ours is an enlightened and tolerant, secular society.

Thank Christ religious leaders don't have authority over the secular institution of marriage. Religion causes wars and creates a negotiable system of "morality credits" making priests praying on children permissible.

I thing monogamous marriage (over 18) of any gender and sexuality is OK. Any objections should be grounded in secular law with particular attention to any harm caused.

I'm with you planty pete

marriage has mostly been fostered by religious nutjobs.

the ancient Hebrew bible regarded women and children as chattels. a good start.

the absolute nutjob Augustine, who's whole life was characterised by interpersonal and sexual dysfunctional relationships, wrote and formalised the Christian dogma surrounding marriage and sex in the 6th century.

the utterly mysognist Aquinas confirmed that stupid dogma in the 12 century

and if anyone disagreed they were deemed heretic's and burned at the stake.

naturally these circumstances have produced the dysfunctional marriage of the 20th century.

our divorce courts confirm that.

David G,
So in other words you don't have a position on this issue.
Candide,
Your response is typical of the well meaning Liberal who is forced to lower their head from the clouds and look directly at what Gay men actually say about themselves, how they behave and how they treat others..either that or you don't understand what Trolling is.

Dan, Runner,
Did you read the R.O.Lopez articles?
That's exactly my experience of working and socialising with Gay men, they're callous, very aggressive in their demands for sex, vain, dishonest and reckless with their own safety and that of others.
I worked for seven years in a restaurant where all of the senior staff were Gay men and about 75% of the staff overall were Gay, I was good friends with some of them and always had a ball when I'd go out after work but to a man they were nothing less than dirty sleazebags.
Now the sleaziness, the stealing, drug taking, dishonesty,hyper-machismo and constant sexual aggression take some getting used to but I was able to get past it. See that's the thing, if you choose to associate with Gay men you have to dispense with any expectations that they'll be reliable friends or be honest with you all the time. That's all I'm saying, Gays are tolerable if you can get over their many, many flaws but the portrayal of them as "normal" or "equal" comes from ignorance of what they actually are...and this is the perspective of a young man who was not sexually or emotionally involved in the Gay scene, I just hung out with them socially as work friends.
I was talking to my brother in law the other day about Gays and he said that working as a bouncer at the Gay bar (Bassline) in the now defunct Palace in St Kilda he got used to homosexual behaviour but he said, "They're OK guys but don't ever try to tell me they're normal, cos they're not"

Jay, your honesty about 'gays' is not reflected by them. There will be many of them who will be shocked by your words and observations.

Gays and lesbians are trying desperately to cover themselves and their bizarre sexual activities in a cloak of normalcy. That's why they want to be 'married' even if they make a mockery of the word in every sense of what marriage means.

Let same-sex adults live together if that is their choice. Let them be unobtrusive, blend in.

They don't have to push their non-normal behaviour down the throats of heterosexuals or turn the whole of society on its head.

Hi imajulianutter

Your knowledge of Roman Catholic history and philosophy is impressive.

While the current Pope is an improvement on most the use by the Vatican of religion as a tool of power projection into democratic secular society remains.

It always bothers me how the Romans, who were major oppressors of defenceless Jews and Christians, become the self-made custodians of Christian righteousness.

How can celibate, never married, old men influence who can or can't marry?

Regards

Pete

"I thing monogamous marriage (over 18) of any gender and sexuality is OK. Any objections should be grounded in secular law with particular attention to any harm caused."

Why monogamous, and why over 18? If the argument against the status quo is that it discriminates against gays, well? It also discriminates against polyamorous and people under 18 who want to "marry" [translation: register their sexual relationship with the government]. Whether other people think they should, or their sexuality is perverted, is beside the point, because the whole point of the argument for same-sex marriage is that it's no-one else's business but the parties.

But of course if that's the case, then there's no reason for government to register it. So the argument is either redundant, or it must apply equally to other sexualities.

@Jardine K. Jardine

Asked and answered matey.

Stops blokes marrying an entire kindergarten.

Pete

Amusing to read these vitriolic postings, by those with their anti-social attitude towards gay people.
Carry on boys, as gay people live every day with bashings, stigma and denial of right of their being. So sorry boys, the world has changed and if you cannot keep up, then you will be left behind in your life of selfishness and indifference to your fellow Australians.

Planty Pete

the Romans took over the Catholic Church very early on. Augustus Caesar decreed the one faith.
Constantine held the council of Nicea and determined what was to be included in the bible, both old and new testament.

I think most people would actually reject most of the religious crap in favour of a return to Christs teachings such as the cornerstone the Sermon on the Mount.

catholic history is fascinating. it has had, and still has, great good but also great evil.

marriage as we know it is not a great good.

cheers

What is the problem with taking the issue out of the hands of politicians. Hold a plebiscite and be done with it.

plantagenet

Is that the best you can do?

imajulianutter, "marriage as we know it is not a great good"

For many, many years homosexuals would have agreed with you on that and likely raised a glass to celebrate their own 'outlaw' existence away from the State interference and regulation affecting heterosexual couple relationships and especially their break-ups. Heterosexual marriage was always the butt of many jokes and it still is. No need to puzzle why.

It is remarkable that gays have been led into State regulation and marriage by feminists who hate men and marriage anyhow, and by 'Progressives' who are also hitching a ride on the Gay bandwagon.

It is easy to see how the greed of educated middle class gays and lesbians who swing from the guvvy teat as politicians, bureaucrats and academics would favour gay marriage. There is spousal travel, benefits for employer subsidised housing and a way to make more out of superannuation with no extra contributions. However, from the experience of the Netherlands, where gay marriage has been in for years the up-take of marriage is very low and since the initial spree, a lot have divorced, proving that gay marriage is not wanted by 99% of gays.

So, exactly who benefits and how? Is the penalty of State regulation, control and monitoring of personal relationships really worth it for the personal financial gains for the privileged few who are rolling in clover anyhow? It is a heck of a lot of needless interference and pain for the gain of the very few with assets and a good income who are already advantaged in life and would never be affected by claimed 'discrimination' anyhow. Honestly, what ordinary person needs courts, lawyers and bureaucrats telling them how to run their lives, or else?

However, Common Law Marriage, ie de facto classification and regulation, is already a fact, done by back-door change and consulted with no-one (the usual modus operandi of the 'Progressives' in Labor).

It would have been funny if the internet was around in 1967 or during the debate on women getting the vote.
There is no doubt in my mind that the right wing trolls on this site would have thought both were a bad ideas. Completely at odds with the western worlds traditions (read christ-stains).

Oh How they would have moaned and nashed their teeth and held up their little fists.

I would not be surprised if some of them actually still thought both of these progressive ideas were bad turning points in our culture.

Kipp,
You can say that but it doesn't make it so, like Candide you've obviously never spent much time around Gay men or probably even among the more dissolute straight men such as Bikies and other outsiders. 100% of the Gay men I've known over the years have been as I've described, seriously what do you think happens when a group of men is freed of all the restraints and social mores of the "straight" world?
Gays are hard people, they're tough in their own way, I respect them for the outsiders, the hustlers, the whores and the mountebanks that they actually are not as the idealised figures from progressive fiction.
Cornonacob,
Firstly there's a difference between a "progressive" and an enlightened attitude toward homosexuals.
Progressives are only interested in advancing their narrative, adding the next chapter to the big book of Liberal fairy tales, "Progress" isn't judged by results, only by it's relationship to Liberal Canon.
See above, in contrast to "progressives" I've been enlightened by extended contact with the Gay world and it's denizens and I accept them for who and what they actually are.

Jay of M I'm Gay mate !! and you talk a load of rubbish, when it comes to what gay people have to deal with daily.
Walk a kilometre in my shoes then you can comment.

Hey, Roddie, we get nearly 40 comments on your Gay Handbag article and 4 comments on Prof. Rees comment on the Palestinian calamity. We don't have to guess where the world's priorities lay, do we?

Whether gays can enjoy sodomy with legal approval or whether a whole people can escape the decades-long brutality and cruelty of the The Children of God seems to have unequal billing in the minds of OLO contributors.

Obviously screwing a whole people or screwing every male in sight is an unequal contest as they see it!

Sometimes, I wish I believed in God and eternal punishment!

Kipp,

I can see where you are coming from when the pin-up Grrl of the feminists and first female PM of Australia finds the stereotypical gay slur so irresistible as to use it to 'poison the well' and trash the reputation of a political opponent in parliament. I refer to the 'mincing poodle' slur.

On this site a woman poster who is an avowed Julia lover continues Julia's gay sex slur, referring to male posters as 'Chihuahuas'. She obviously revels in the opportunity to extend the disgraceful slur to imply smallness in all respects. That doubles the sexual offence. Yet she claims to support gays! Maybe the right word is patronise, not support.

I don't believe that gays are choosing the smart or better course for themselves by allowing the feminists and 'Progressives' to institutionalise and regulate them and their relationships.

It is not yet too late to use any momentum left to come up with a creative alternative to the 'marriage' and family law concocted by the feminists and Fabian Socialists 'Progressives'. Neither crew gives a stuff about male gays and both are totally for State control and interference by the State in private lives, especially where men are concerned.

Don't you guys feel like marionettes, with your strings being manipulated by others? You should.

Kipp,whine, narrative of oppression, Liberal canon etc.
Can you deny the things I've said about the Gay subculture?
So are Gay men still taking steroids and methamphetamine because everyone hates them and not because they want to look good in the club and have that crazy, violent sex you get on speed?
Wow! Gays must really have changed in the last 20 years, so if I went to a Gay club tonight are you saying that some stranger is not going to try and rub my crotch as I'm talking to them or try and pop amyl under my nose like they used to?
Then again, I'm older and fatter than I was back then and I know how "the boys" are about youth and beauty ;)
Seriously though Kipp, as one transgressive, attention seeking personality to another, do you really see yourself as "equal" to Fred Nile or Danny Nalliah? I don't.

My take on "marriage equality" is similar to that on capitol punishment. I think that capitol punishment is overwhelmingly endorsed by the people, and "marriage equality" most definitely is not. In both of these policies, I would be wiling to put it to a plebiscite and let the people decide.

But neither those who want "marriage equality" or a reintroduction of the death penalty want plebiscites on these issues because they know they would lose.

Lego,
I don't want the status of homosexuality under the law to change from where it sits now, however as a father I do see the need to stop the promotion of Gay propaganda to people under the age of 18, it definitely should not be allowed in schools.

Jay, no amount of 'propaganda' in school would have convinced me to 'become gay', I don't know about you.

You put yourself out there as being a man of the world, who knows about everything, but you aren't aware that you are born gay and can't 'decide' to be gay.

As far as I am concerned, if you feel uncertain about your sexuality, as some people say, then you are gay.

I am not threatened by the possibility of gay marriage, and only religious nutters and bigots feel upset by this.

Suseonline,

I am not “threatened by the possibility of gay marriage” because there is no such thing. Nor am I “upset” by it. Nor are those who oppose the misuse of the English language “religious nutters and bigots”. This nasty labelling is what members of the gay marriage lobby resort to to cover up for the irrationality of their case. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. That is just what it is. That marriage has this meaning and not another is no more a matter of discrimination than the fact that a doctor is not a saucepan, though I might start Australians for Saucepan Equality so that doctors can be called saucepans.

The same-sex marriage campaign is the silliest thing to be taken seriously in the last 40 years, which is perhaps why its proponents become so emotional and nasty in their comments.

Chris C, "Kettle and Pot" !!

Kipp,

Very funny! But would we argue that pots should be called kettles on the grounds of kettle equality or that kettles should be called pots on the grounds of pot equality?

Chris did you know that Pots and kettles enjoy equality, in that they have a mutual use, being cooking utensils.
There again you would know that, being involved in "Education"?

Kipp,

Exactly! Pots are pots and kettle are kettles, but they are both equally cooking utensils. They just have different names. Same-sex unions are same-sex unions and marriages are marriages and they are both equally relationships. They just have different names.