Never mind, our new PM Neville Chamberlain, will oblige the homosexuals ASAP, with a free and legal trip to the alter! The majority opinion will be turfed out to appease the Homo-Nazis !

We need a bill of irrevocable rights which simply must include a right to be born different; and given we are, not excluded from the same inviolable rights accorded to all others!

" Inasmuch as You do to the least among you you also do unto me!"

If we are all the sons and daughters of a creator, why would he/she create some of us different?

Perhaps to test the rest of us (and do not sin against[test] us) to see whether we we're fair dinkum and not just putty/property in the hands of evil influence?

I mean, it was once common practise to sterilize some folks to prevent them passing on cerebral palsy, for heaven's sake, which is primarily the product of oxygen starvation before or during the birth transition; and not the genetic trait some of the most ignorant folks on earth liked to believe it was, in order for them to act out their particular brand of malevolent, medieval and evil discrimination!

Just because you look like a dribbling village idiot doesn't make you one, even where that has financial outcomes for some; or just an excuse to throw rocks! Oh how jolly! Beats the hell out of throwing rocks at magpies, which often have his nasty habit of going ballistic and fighting back.

Homosexuallity is not a transferable genetic trait or disorder; just a naturally occurring (perhaps hormonal) aberration manifesting as a tiny problem with the internal personal sexual control wiring and therefore "repairable/reroutable"?

More cake to go with that tea anyone? Lovely party?
Rhrosty.

How can anyone take away your right to call your relationship a marriage? You are free to call your relationship whatever you like. It is a fundamental part of free speech. You do not need anyone else to define your relationship as a marriage much less the government. If you define marriage as a relationship that must be certified by the government then you are your own worst enemy.

The irony is that same-sex couples want to define marriage to suit themselves by declaring that it must have a government issued licence. They claim that no one has a right to define marriage as between a man and woman and yet they want to define it as a relationship approved by the government. This excludes all those couples who define themselves as married but who do not possess a certificate. Isn’t that a blatant attack on human rights - the right to define your own relationship?

Many people do not agree that a marriage has to include a certificate. Many agree that it must be sanctioned by their church or it is not a true marriage so whose definition of marriage is the one that should be enshrined in rights legislation?

When you ask for something that you already have then it is obvious you are looking to achieve something other than what you say you want. You have a hidden agenda.

I just want to confirm that the author agrees that the ICCPR allows for polyamorous marriage? What is the authors take on the relationship of the same sex partners in such a marriage?

For those of you following at home here is a link tot he human right Commission position paper on the subject https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/pdf/human_rights/MarriagePositionPaper2012.pdf

Triggs is a dolt for not knowing of the UNHR ruling, particularly as it supposed to be her field. But then, ignorance often goes with arrogance such as hers.

So it's a human-right to receive a certificate from the government?

A certificate that I like ice-cream?
A certificate that I'm a genius?
A certificate that I can stand on one foot for an hour?
...

If they refuse to give me those certificates {sob, whimper}, then I'll go and complain to the Yunighted-Nayshons {moan, weep, mewl}...