Toni Lavis:

So because they have not spoken up they do not exist? Maybe they have not thought about it. If there are such wonderful advantages to be had in being married then why wouldn't two people want to take advantage of those advantages regardless of their sexuality? Why should they be denied the opportunity even if they do not take it up. Not all homosexual couples will decide to get married either. As they so often say it is about having the choice.

There is no movement for same-sex heterosexuals to get married right now but there was a time when homosexuals were not lobbying for marriage either.

Polygamy is not a red-herring to those who want to be in a polygamous marriage. Do you deny such people exist?

We are talking about who can and who can't get married. Why would homosexuals bother about discussing other groups or couples who also cannot marry? It should not in any way affect their argument unless they base their argument on discrimination on the grounds of sexuality.

Dear Alan,

«Our sexual orientation is decided in the womb and by our DNA!»

Even so, using one's will power and/or the grace of God, one can get rid of their sexual orientation (whether heterosexual or homosexual makes no difference, they are both harmful just the same).

But you were not talking about sexual orientation - you were talking about being gay, which is a political orientation: you claimed, without any evidence, that there are certain genes that cause this orientation.

Most homosexuals, and I know a few, are not gay, never were, and would be insulted if you called them so. They go peacefully about their life, never participated in any parade, never signed any petition, never made a political fuss about their sexuality. On the other hand, many of those who take part in the "gay" political movement are not homosexual, just activists who invent sexual issues in order to fight religion.

Y-y-y-yeah, phanto. I might just leave those last two posts of yours ri-i-i-ight there and slowly back away.

Diver, I am not homosexual! I don't have a homosexual bone in my body and if anyone tried to put one in there, my first and instinctive reaction would be to knock his ivories so far down his throat, his arse would look like a piano keyboard.

I don't rave, I just try and acquaint the outrageously homophobic flat earthers with a few salient facts, so as to end, hopefully, occasionally some of the persecution or blatant discrimination. And soley on the basis of hugely errant medieval/stone age belief!

Your side are the only ravers and demonstrably so, given you point blank refuse to accept even a single grain of a mustard seed of a veritable tide of evidence, that shows that homosexuallity is part on normal aberrations from the norm, which is hugely complex.

And just as diverse as fingerprints and retinas, which are different, even in identical twins!

You need to sit down and quietly contemplate, could you and your like minded ilk have been wrong all these years?

And given that appears very much the case, are you prepare to stand in the dock on your final day of judgement and accept for yourself (so as you do unto others) all you have dished out in word, deed and harm, but in spades!

Something to think about as you mindlessly bang away, with your endless homophobic messaging!

What's next? Critiquing the blind for being born blind or being the left handed identical twin, or for having one blue eye and one brown one, when the identical twin has a matching pair? And not that different from homophobic messaging?

These folk aren't interfering with any of your rights or privileges! So who the hell do you think you are and who gave you the right to persecute them or deny them the same rights to fair and equal treatment you expect for yourself as your God given legacy!?

You need to fess up? You re just a fanatically obsessed homophobic R sole, merely masquerading as a fair minded, reasonable and naturally empathetic human being, aren't you?
Alan B.

//So because they have not spoken up they do not exist?//

Not necessarily, in the same way that the lack of tangible evidence for gnomes doesn't mean that they don't exist either. They might - but on the other hand, they might not. Since nobody can prove their existence and it's essentially impossible to conclusively disprove their existence, it boils down to a question of belief: whether or not one believes in the existence of the Loch Ness Monster in the absence of conclusive proof or disproof. I don't because I'm fairly sceptical by nature, but there are plenty of people who do.

Even if one does believe in unicorns, they make a lousy premise for any argument. It doesn't matter what the argument is for, or what the other premises are. If you have any argument that goes:

1. Premise 1.
2. Premise 2.
3. Bigfoot is real.
4. Premise 4.
Therefore: Conclusion.

It's going to come unstuck at premise 3, because you can't prove the truth of that premise. That puts your argument on some pretty thin ice. Solid conclusions are built on a foundation of solid facts.

//Do you deny such people exist?//

No, they definitely exist. And when any political party with any representatives in the Australian Parliament proposes legislation to legalise polygamy, or promises us a referendum so that we might have our say on the matter, then I will start to pay attention to arguments for or against. Until then, there's not really much point is there? Since it's all just conjecture.

// Why bother about discussing other groups or couples who also cannot marry?//

Why indeed, phanto - since it's irrelevant to the debate at hand? The only answers I can come up with is that some people mistakenly believe irrelevant arguments to be sound arguments, or that they are deliberately attempting to distract from the debate at hand for whatever reason.

AJ, you keep evading the whole focus of the SSM campaign.
That every consenting adult has the right to marry the person they love. That every consenting adult has the same rights currently held by heterosexual men and women.
There are no qualifiers.no " but only homosexual couples qualify for this" .
It's a straight out, non ambiguous statement that applies to very single adult, regardless of the type of relationship that marriage would involve.
It's not up to you to say, well polygamous couples can't do it, incestuous couples can't do it, mixed gender groups can't do it.
Either you believe in equality of marriage or you support the traditional view. There is no such thing as partial equality.