The government should not change the Marriage Act to include homosexuals until it can be shown that homosexual behaviour makes sense. Unless homosexual behaviour can be shown to make sense and is reasonable then homosexual relationships are unreasonable and there is no point in changing legislation on the basis that they are reasonable.

It seems to be just taken for granted that such behaviour is reasonable but no one has yet provided a coherent argument to show how it can be so. Why does heterosexual behaviour have such a coherent argument and homosexual behaviour does not? It is clear that heterosexual behaviour has a purpose – to continue the species. What is the purpose of homosexual behaviour?

"Errant behaviour: homosexuality.
Protest movement: gay rights lobby.
Auspice: social discrimination.
Specifics: gay marriage
Intent: legitimise homosexuality."

And that's one of the key reasons why a plebiscite is a bad idea. Australians who love each other will be barraged with this sort of hate-filled nonsense.

Also a neat demonstration of how empty is the claim that pro-SSM people unreasonably use words like "bigot".

If you don't want to be gay, don't be gay. Otherwise, feel free to mind your own business.

star dust....

Unbeknown to yourself stardust, you fit the emotional profile the author describes in his article above.
Most people are not against the homosexual, but against the act of homosexuality. There is no hate at all in my post re:

"Errant behaviour: homosexuality.
Protest movement: gay rights lobby.
Auspice: social discrimination.
Specifics: gay marriage
Intent: legitimise homosexuality."

The homosexual act is "errant behaviour" since it deviates from the norm. And, homosexuals are deviants, since they act-out deviant behaviour; different from normal.
Sanctioning deviant behaviour by offering marriage as a way to legitimise abnormal behaviour, is an unreasonable expectation of society.
There may be certain members of that society who will not object, on the other hand, there will be members of that same society who will object!
Therefore, a plebiscite is a legitimate and justified means to test opinion on this critical issue!

Diver Dan

You say “Most people are not against the homosexual, but against the act of homosexuality”. Actually the polls suggest that “most people” are against neither. Different pollsters with different questions consistently show majority support for gay marriage. Unless people are supporting celibate gay marriage, which I think unlikely, then you’re wrong.

I think you are confusing definitions of “normal” – one being the usual or typical, the other being acceptable or conforming to certain standards.

Homosexuality could be considered “abnormal” in the first sense because most people are heterosexual, just as most people are right-handed and, worldwide, most people have black hair. That doesn’t mean that gays are “errant”, any more than left-handers or redheads. And in a more meaningful sense of the word, it is “normal” for any human population to include a minority of left-handers, people with exceptional IQs, short people, and homosexuals.

The second meaning, implying deviation from what one *should* be, is a matter of moral judgement. But to argue that people should not engage in homosexual behaviour because it is “abnormal” begs the question of why it should be considered “abnormal”, and resort to definition 1 wont suffice – unless you would argue that my left-handeness is equally “errant”.

Being left handed is natural, having a high IQ is natural, being short is natural but being homosexual is not natural. Just because some human beings indulge in homosexual behaviour does not make it natural.

If something is natural then it follows that it makes sense to act in accord with that nature. It would make no sense for a left-handed person to force themselves to write with their right hand. If it is natural to be short then it is logical to not pursue a career in professional basketball

It is natural to have heterosexual sex if you want to create a child – it is in accord with natures designs. That is the whole point of sex. What argument is there for the existence of homosexual behaviour which can never be in accord with nature?

Phanto
How does it make “sense” to be a redhead or left-handed?

Homosexual activity exists in the animal kingdom, and every human society and culture we know of has included homosexuals. So homosexuality is “natural”.

Nature has no designs or plans, still less a moralistic agenda. But if you’re relying on some kind of ethical naturalism, in which the sole purpose of sexual activity is to produce children, then the millions of Australian couples that use contraception are no less unnatural than homosexuals.