All sorts of arguments and all sorts of reasons
are being put forward both for and against
same-sex marriage. I am beginning to see that
there are sincere and valid arguments on both
sides. In order to lift this debate to an
intelligent and mature discussion we should all
listen to each other in this debate and not
insult or debase the arguments that we don't agree
with. We are all entitled to our opinions.
We should not demonise others who don't agree with
us.

The best way, in my humble opinion on resolving this
issue is to allow the people of this country to have
their say. A vote on whether they want same-sex marriage
or not. Of course, before this is done - the full
legalities of this action should be explained and what
it means. People need all the information prior to
voting on the issue. Only then can they make an
informed choice.

Foxy I agree, a plebiscite seems to me a good way to resolve this issue. It is fundamentally a question of what society believes marriage is, and that’s not particularly suited to resolution in the party political melee.

I'd add a couple of riders, though - the question should be drafted with the agreement of both sides, so it's not loaded or ambiguous; and government should agree to abide by the outcome.

I also think we should hold the vote before the next election

Yes, Foxy, Rhian, but at the next election please!

If only to save the millions any further delay would create. Time being the friend of the homophobes; they think?

Homophobic bigots just being an apt description, rather than alleged denigration!

I mean, you'd think two siblings raised in the same environment with the same influences, would have the so called straight one questioning his/her assertions; but particularly if that person comes from a medical background and well inculcated in science?

I guess this is what is meant by, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink? Or in human terms, think!

Those who believe they are on the right side of history have little to fear by being right and in the majority.

Those completely out of step with the wider community, will likely try every dirty trick in the book, to sway the still undecided; and to them I say, good luck with that!
Rhrosty.

Gay marriage is radical change to marriage, turning the whole concept on its head. For instance it breaks the connection between procreation and marriage. Pro-gay marriage proponents have been very quick to say that radical feminism has dug the ground away from under 'traditional marriage', family and fatherhood over the years anyhow and they are right. Marriage is a hollowed-out institution.

The elephant in the room is that the whole rationale for giving marrieds preferential treatment, entitlements and concessions, directly and indirectly, has been lost as well. That is especially so because the 'married' rump of the population has been increased significantly by de factos gaining married entitlements and then by adding homosexual 'relationships' (new speak for de facto) as well.

So, why should single people be forced to pay for other people's 'love'? Their only argument for special treatment is their 'love', whatever that is.

Last time a society had politicized and networked gays in power it was the Nazi core of the SA under promiscuous gays Roehm and Hitler from the 1920s.

Very silly idea. An earlier and more established form was Sodom, well recorded in Jewish and Muslim texts, perhaps less so in Christian versions (maybe how the "Christian" West came to this bizarre situation?)

Dear Observer,

For your information, the norm that made Sodom so notorious was not homosexuality, but the torture of guests. One of the forms of torture happened to be homosexual rape but it was not the only form.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah#Jewish

---

Since I'm already here, what I can say about the article is that Fr. Frank Brennan received his legal answer:

The law already persecutes and potentially martyrs some religious people (and others) if they refuse to provide goods, services or accommodation against their conscience, thus condition #4 is not met.

Being there no goodwill to change this situation, Fr. Brennan has no reason to support the change.