To add to your list, Pogi, are homosexuals who endure heterosexual sex for procreation. It's quite common.

AJ,

"So is it because same-sex marriage would be going from not-legal to legal then? Is that why same-sex marriage (as opposed to interracial marriage) requires a different word for it? That doesn’t sound like very sound reasoning to me."

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but this comment does seem to verge towards racism, if you'll excuse me for saying. What is anomalous about inter-racial marriage ? I was in one for 43 glorious years and I can certainly recommend them. How is inter-racial marriage comparable, in any way, to homosexual unions ? Woman + man = marriage. Find another word, AJ.

By the way, currently, most marriages involving Indigenous partners are with non-Indigenous people, up to 90 % in Sydney amongst working people. It's interesting how many top sportspeople at the moment are either the product of inter-marriage or are in one themselves. Wonderful. The lucky people.

Joe

Pogi:

Why do you need to tell me what you or anyone else thinks about me? Why would I care?

Then you say that I provide no cogent reasons to support my opinions. Then you proceed to present two paragraphs of reasons to counter my opinions which have no basis in reason. I make an assertion without evidence or any viable argument and then you proceed to present arguments to what end?

If there is nothing to argue against why do you feel the need to present arguments? You have said all that needs to be said when you say I do not have any arguments. It does not even make sense to do that much. Why would you bother to respond to a bald-faced statement at all? The only thing that makes sense is to not respond at all. The point of these forums is to argue and if someone does not present an argument then what is the point of even engaging with them?

You behaviour is totally illogical. Either I have an argument or I do not and if I do not then the only logical response is to ignore me. It is a simple choice for you to either put up or shut up. Either you behave logically and not respond to me or shut up about my lack of reasoning. No one would be so illogical as to present arguments when an argument has not even been proffered.

But perhaps your posting is just an excuse to hide your aggression. You need to try an hurt me by trying to make me feel bad about the fact that others think ill of me. This must be the only logical reason for your post - the need to put me down for some reason. Why would you need to do this unless the claims I made have caused some discomfort inside you? You would not want to try and hurt me just because I have not presented arguments to back up my claims but only because my claims have unsettled you.

Joe,

Yes, you’re interpreting what I said incorrectly.

<<Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but this comment does seem to verge towards racism, if you'll excuse me for saying.>>

It sounds to me like you harbour negative feelings towards homosexuality, and that causes you to see something offensive in my comparing of the two.

<<What is anomalous about inter-racial marriage ?>>

Nothing, now. But it used to be anomalous, just as same-sex marriage is now. The similarities between the push against interracial marriage and same-sex marriage (regardless of their legal statuses at the time) are striking:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8JsRx2lois

<<How is inter-racial marriage comparable, in any way, to homosexual unions ? Woman + man = marriage.>>

The fact that they were/are seen by many as abominations (see the above video).

<<Find another word, AJ.>>

You have not yet justified the necessity in doing so. So we’re back to my original question: why would a new word for same-sex marriage be necessary?

Is it just because “Woman + man = marriage”? Because what constitutes a marriage has continuously evolved throughout history. Why must that necessarily stop now?

According to my Bible, woman + man + murdering son = marriage. Sounds like you conservatives need to stop being such a bunch of progressive-pandering wets and get a bit of Bible Truth back into you.

Dear Phanto,

«The point of these forums is to argue»

I would say that this is one of the very few remaining sites in Australia where one can express their views freely and anonymously, thus without fear of retribution.

According to the preamble to this site:

¨About The National Forum

The National Forum, publisher of this site, was incorporated as a not-for-profit company to be a vehicle to promote democratic uses of the Internet in Australia. The National Forum site is a virtual Town Square designed to provide free democratic space on the web for our citizens, and shop fronts for our institutions."

- I see there no mention of arguments.

Yuyutsu:

What is wrong with the process of argument? It is how human beings strive to come to the truth to work out the best way to structure society. Most people come to these forums because they want to contribute to that process. It is not a negative thing but one of the most profound things we do as humans.

A J Philips:

"It sounds to me like you harbour negative feelings towards homosexuality, and that causes you to see something offensive in my comparing of the two."

What does it matter what a person's feelings toward homosexuality might be? The only thing that matters is what their arguments are. Decisions in society are made according to the most logical argument not feelings.

"why would a new word for same-sex marriage be necessary?"

It might not be necessary but if it costs you nothing to accept a new word and it pacifies other people then why would you not want to change it? Surely same-sex couples value peace and harmony and if it can be had this way then why would they refuse it? Is calling your relationship a marriage really that important?

"Because what constitutes a marriage has continuously evolved throughout history. Why must that necessarily stop now?"

What would be the problem if it did stop? Lots of things have evolved to their final resting place. Just because marriage has evolved does not mean it has to go on evolving. That is not an argument for a continuation of evolution - it is simply an observation that our understanding has evolved. Since it is up to human beings to decide when such evolution should cease why shouldn't it stop at the point where it excludes homosexuals? You have to provide an argument why the evolution of the understanding of marriage should continue beyond where it now resides - as relationship between a man and a woman.