McReal,

"Yes, there is. Given how societies and it's members now view homosexuality."

You don't know much about society. Countries similar to ours have voted for same sex so-called marriage, and there is more than a 50% chance that Australian society will do the same, such is the degeneration of society. You will get what you want, but you will always be fringe-dwellers, separate from the rest, including most of those who vote for it; they are just 'feel good' types who don't understand that 'equality' is not always appropriate, and they won't be inviting you around to their heterosexual, normal households any time soon.

Give it up Chris C.
If the word marriage meant only a man and a woman then how come we use the word in so many other contexts?
Like for instance saying the marriage of idiocy and malice. Or the marriage of vegimite and hot toast. Even the marriage of one poncy art style with another. A marriage of reggae and funk was a description used for the band The Police.

The word means and can be used for so much more than just hetero coupling. Your argument is facile and disingenuous and doesnt fool anyone

mikk,

Look up the difference between “literal” and “metaphorical”, or are you suggesting the Marriage Act be amended to define “marriage” as “the union of vegemite and toast”?

Hi Mikk,

Marriage entails or affects divorce, widowhood, inheritance and birth, raising and custody of children.

Once 'married', I wonder how a piece of toast could get divorced from the vegemite spread on it ? Perhaps not if one was Catholic. Fortunately, on the other hand, they usually are widowed together, down to the last crumb, and neither leaves offspring, and disputes over inheritance of survivor versus children are avoided, so I suppose a piece of toast with vegemite both die intestate.

But imagine the hassles if one spread jam on a bit of toast instead of vegemite: can the vegemite sue for divorce on the grounds of adultery ? Can a half-eaten piece of toast with vegemite be apportioned appropriately after such a divorce ?

Thanks Mikk, for raising such crucial issues, and for conclusively proving the existence of the hitherto-undiscovered marriage of idiocy and malice.

Joe

Labelling anyone as homophobic shows how out of touch with human nature the labeller really is.

Homophobia is not a disease but a feeling. It is a fear and as such it does not have any value of good or bad. Claustrophobia, agoraphobia and arachnophobia are the same. These things are neither rational nor irrational – they just exist as part of our human nature. Denigrating the reality of these feelings is to denigrate human nature.

Whether homosexual people like it or not there are many heterosexual people who are repulsed by the sight or thought of homosexual behaviour. This is a fact that could be measured physiologically in the same way that other phobias can be. How they behave in response to their feelings may be open to criticism but the fact they have those feelings can never open to criticism.

Homosexual people expose themselves when they try and criticise people for being homophobic as being out of touch with their own human nature. It shows a lack of understanding of fear and revulsion and how they play a fundamental role in how we cope with reality.

ttbn,
The proportion of people that are fearful of or irrational about homosexuals is progressively decreasing. They're people.