//Yeah, a frequently apparent smug flippancy, with shallowness and superficiality in arguing their case. Not all gays, of course - Pasolini for example wouldn't have entertained such nonsense for a minute.

Got anything better to contribute, or is it just more "Cos I wanna"?//

If that is your best attempt at a reasoned argument no wonder you are losing the debate.

BTW I'm straight. Assumption is the mother of all fcuk-ups.

I knew you were going to come back with that. The foul abuse is no surprise either.

My reference to "Cos I wanna" is simply my identification of your shallow principle (more lack thereof), by which whatever a middle-class westerner wants should be allowed.

I expect next you'll write that your working class, part-Asian, religious, whatever

Case proven, floor wiped

//The foul abuse is no surprise either.//

It's a surprise to me that you could read foul abuse into that post. I guess some people only see what they want to see.

I must be a bit thick, mil.observer, I didn't see any "consequences" for Christians listed in your post. In fairness, I may have missed it among the non-sequiturs, so if that's the case, please indulge me by reiterating it.

A suitable form of such a response might be:

"The consequence that Christians would suffer as a result of marriage equality being ratified in law is [...]".

Other forms of words that are similarly concise and lucid could be substituted as preferred.

Craig Minns, you cannot be correct when you continue to be disingenuous.

The unstated objective of SSM proponents is to trample the institution of traditional marriage and all those who support it. Suppression of freedoms is inherent.

What has transpired in Canada is pertinent. Bradley Miller’s article ‘Same-Sex Marriage Ten Years On: Lessons from Canada’ (http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/11/6758/ ) contains the following observations.

The Impact on Human Rights

The formal effect of the judicial decisions (and subsequent legislation) establishing same-sex civil marriage in Canada was simply that persons of the same-sex could now have the government recognize their relationships as marriages. But the legal and cultural effect was much broader. What transpired was the adoption of a new orthodoxy: that same-sex relationships are, in every way, the equivalent of traditional marriage, and that same-sex marriage must therefore be treated identically to traditional marriage in law and public life.

A corollary is that anyone who rejects the new orthodoxy must be acting on the basis of bigotry and animus toward gays and lesbians. Any statement of disagreement with same-sex civil marriage is thus considered a straightforward manifestation of hatred toward a minority sexual group. Any reasoned explanation (for example, those that were offered in legal arguments that same-sex marriage is incompatible with a conception of marriage that responds to the needs of the children of the marriage for stability, fidelity, and permanence—what is sometimes called the conjugal conception of marriage), is dismissed right away as mere pretext.

Thus it was in Canada that the terms of participation in public life changed very quickly. Civil marriage commissioners were the first to feel the hard edge of the new orthodoxy; several provinces refused to allow commissioners a right of conscience to refuse to preside over same-sex weddings, and demanded their resignations. At the same time, religious organizations, such as the Knights of Columbus, were fined for refusing to rent their facilities for post-wedding celebrations.

(cont.)
The Right to Freedom of Expression

The new orthodoxy’s impact has not been limited to the relatively small number of persons at risk of being coerced into supporting or celebrating a same-sex marriage. The change has widely affected persons—including clergy—who wish to make public arguments about human sexuality.

Much speech that was permitted before same-sex marriage now carries risks. Many of those who have persisted in voicing their dissent have been subjected to investigations by human rights commissions and (in some cases) proceedings before human rights tribunals. Those who are poor, poorly educated, and without institutional affiliation have been particularly easy targets—anti-discrimination laws are not always applied evenly. Some have been ordered to pay fines, make apologies, and undertake never to speak publicly on such matters again. Targets have included individuals writing letters to the editors of local newspapers, and ministers of small congregations of Christians.

But the financial cost of fighting the human rights machine remains enormous—Maclean’s magazine spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, none of which is recoverable from the commissions, tribunals, or complainants. And these cases can take up to a decade to resolve. An ordinary person with few resources who has drawn the attention of a human rights commission has no hope of appealing to the courts for relief; such a person can only accept the admonition of the commission, pay a (comparatively) small fine, and then observe the directive to remain forever silent. As long as these tools remain at the disposal of the commissions—for whom the new orthodoxy gives no theoretical basis to tolerate dissent—to engage in public discussion about same-sex marriage is to court ruin.

Similar pressure can be—and is—brought to bear on dissenters by professional governing bodies (such as bar associations, teachers’ colleges, and the like) that have statutory power to discipline members for conduct unbecoming of the profession. Expressions of disagreement with the reasonableness of institutionalizing same-sex marriage are understood by these bodies to be acts of illegal discrimination, which are matters for professional censure.