...It has become painfully evident, the marriage demands made by the homosexual element, has positioned them in a strata of society which has divorced itself from the common cause of mankind!

Back again, are you, AJ Phillips? Are you prepared to debate racism like a grown up? Or are you still running and hiding by demanding that I prove everything while you just criticise everything I say, and submit nothing?

Racism must be right if those who advocate it are prepared to argue it out, while those who oppose it are too frightened of fair debate and want to shut us up through the use of 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

To Kip.

I know that they are normal sexual acts between the sexes and I don't wish to ban them. But homosexuality is an same sex act which I also do not wish to ban, but I do not consider same sex as normal behaviour, any more than I consider paedophilia, incest, or bestiality to be normal behaviour.

But with homosexuality and even incest I am liberal. What you do in your bedrooms is your business. But don't tell me that it is normal and that you want social respectability and equality with normal people. Do you consider that a sister and brother cohabiting and having sex together should be called "marriage"? Even if the sister took contraceptives, the "marriage" would be considered socially unacceptable, most people would not recognise it, and the pair of them would be ostracised because it violated societal norms.

There would be nothing wrong with people laughing and sneering at a "married" brother and sister, and discriminating against them. And I don't see anything wrong with laughing at homosexuals or discriminating against them either. Nor do I consider homosexuals living together a "marriage."

Just because something occurs does not make it 'normal' and nor does it recommend the behaviour. Even apart from anal sex, which is fraught with medical problems including damage and contraction of STDs, there are apparently many other risk-taking practices of male homosexuals in particular that to most people are and always will be objectionable, unsafe and not to be recommended.

Returning to anal sex, while some women might submit to it, what woman would say it is pleasurable to her or worth the risks? That is a question for the women on the forum, 'Would you yourself request anal sex and if so what about the risks?'.

It has never been and should not be the practice of governments to legitimise and even approve of acts that have known risks to health.

It is enough that homosexuality is not illegal and that there are laws forbidding discrimination. Not being referred to by the Marriage Act is not discrimination and there nor is there any loss of 'rights'.

There is no way the public will ever learn to 'love' homosexuality. Tolerance is enough. That applies to many things in life. Choose another word for homosexual partnerships because marriage is already taken. Marriage already has a meaning and use.

That's stretching it just a little, onthebeach.

>>It has never been and should not be the practice of governments to legitimise and even approve of acts that have known risks to health.<<

Smoking. Drinking. Filling the air with pollutants. Eating fatty foods. The list is endless.

Would you support a ban on drinking alcohol? Wouldn't you regard that as unnecessary and unwarranted interference in your life?

Onthebeach, it has never been and should not be the practise of Governments to legiti mise and even approve of acts that hav known risks to health, c'mon Governments not only risk health but are good at killing people in war, besides there is a new condom coming out in 2015 especially for anal sex, not only for the homosexual community but for the heterosexual community as well, for those who enjoy that type of sex.

To Pericles.

I would object to smokers renaming "smoking" as "healthy breathing." I would object to alcohol drinkers renaming alcohol consumption as "partaking essential fluids." And I would object to those who love fatty foods renaming the consumption of fat "nutrition."

Entire libraries of law books exist regulating every facet of human behaviour. Democratic governments have the right to enact any law which they see fit within their own constitutions that reflect the will of the people, and which they consider will produce a peaceful society.

If you think that the people support you, then bring on the referendum. Stuff the damned republic. Let's have a referendum on what people really want. I am prepared to go to the polls and if people are stupid enough to call sodomy "marriage" then I will live with it.

But you don't want that, do you? You know that you will lose.

People are tolerant of homosexuals. But they have no intention if granting social respectability to homosexuals any more than they will give social respectability to paedophiles, incestuous couples, people who indulge in bestiality, people who like eating whales, or women who go to funerals in bikinis.