EricG –“Many of us are already celebrating our significant relationships as marriage even when we can't take advantage of another country's laws”.

Isn’t this the problem though? If you can celebrate everything that heterosexual marriages celebrate then why are you trying to get the law changed? Everyone is entitled to define marriage as they like – if you do not agree with someone else’s definition then why not simply ignore it? Why do you care so much about what others think? The government is entitled to their definition as is everyone else but you do not have to agree with it. Many heterosexual people do not define marriage as something that has to be endorsed by the government. They have a ceremony, a reception, a honeymoon and then make a life together without any government involvement whatsoever. If you give up you undeniable right to define your own relationship as a marriage then you can hardly complain if the government does not agree with you.

You already have the right to be married – you just don’t qualify for a certificate. The certificate of itself is utterly worthless and anyone who pursues it is acting irrationally. To go after something which is worthless is unbecoming of a mature human being.

Of course you may also want the rights to your partner’s assets or to be considered as their significant other. You should have these rights not because you have a certificate but because you have a relationship. There are millions of couples who have a certificate but not a relationship. A certificate should not be the proof of a relationship. If proof is needed it should be obtained by other means such as the criteria that social services use.

You should fight for your rights to these things but without compromise. Demand these rights because you have the same relationship as heterosexuals and not because you have the same piece of paper. Anything less is undignified.

Phanto,I'll tell you how it works
Gay life choices are none of our business and we're not allowed to make any observations about them but their failures and any hurdles they face in the pursuit of their choices are all 100% our fault.

Don't forget that the whole "progressive" ideology is totally geared toward the pursuit of personal "happiness", not the pursuit of excellence,enlightenment or liberty nor is it geared to the development of weltanschauung.
The opposite of "Progressivism" is something alluded to in concepts such as "Jihad" or "heimat', an examined life, a life grounded in time, space and a sense of a greater purpose.

Eric G.

People like myself who were once tolerant of homosexuals are now becoming more hostile to homosexuals because of your constant demands for social equality. If you wish to increase hostility towards homosexuals then just keep it up. Had I known that homosexuals would try to corrupt our youth into thinking that homosexual behaviour was normal and fashionable, I would never have agreed with the idea that homosexuality should not be illegal.

People do have strong feelings about sexuality, and their attitudes can be considered unfair. It is a cultural universal all over the globe that males who are very sexually active are regarded as "studs" while women who are very sexually active are regarded as "sluts." Women who are very sexually active can cry about that all they want. But that is how people everywhere think. But if women who are very sexually active demand social equality with women who are much more virtuous, then it just is not going to happen.

Even women would not agree to that. The lowest thing that a woman can call another is "a slut." Women who are monogamous or who at least are not very sexually active are respected as virtuous. Virtuous women themselves tend to look down on women who sleep around with anybody.

Homosexuals are in exactly the same position as sluts. People tolerate you but they do not approve of your behaviour. Your sexuality may be a product of your DNA and you can't help it, but women who are very sexually active probably have the same problem and they are still not getting social approval.

Your premise that social respect for homosexuality is "inevitable" is an opinion I do not share. My own perception, is that hostility towards homosexuals is increasing becaue people are beginning to perceive homosexuals as chronic illegal drug users, and the corruptors of our youth through their very high concentration in the entertainment media.

The Eurovision morons just shot themselves in the foot with their latest "bearded lady star". They have probably now lost half their audience.

"that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life"

That idea was disproved long ago. Even Cardinal Pell admits that we are the product of evolution.

David

There are no 'gay' people, just people.
Sorry, there are no people, only mammals.
Um, no mammals, only animals.
Oops, no animals, only lifeforms.
Nup, no lifeforms, only matter.
Uh-oh, there is no matter, only atoms.

Forget removing "gay" from the lexicon, we should not use any word but "atom".

Bernie gidday.

I love your analysis of our language usage and you philosophical imputations.
Gender doesn't denote the underlying sex. It more commonly recently denotes much more than the mere physicality denoting actual sex.

I think gender is what makes us as persons. Similarly inwardly, despite all the obsfaction, delusions and rationalisations actual sex organs define us to ourselves. These actions then becomes a denial of self.

There is a line of thought then that follows that deviation from the overwhelming sexual norms issue in fact a denial of self and that all the over-emphasis on the deviation from the norm is not an attempt at outward persuasion of others but an attempt to overcome the original self denial.