"Deuc says homophobia implies 'attacking them as a group/stereotyping'"
No, I said that "attacking them as a group/stereotyping" is an indicator of homophobia.

"Then what does innate mean if not reference to genetics?"
A couple of definitions from dictionary.com: "Possessed as an essential characteristic; inherent" and "Not established by conditioning or learning". Fingerprints would be a good example of the latter.

''GAY MARRIAGE''

To introduce a system,or recocnize that a gay marriage is acceptable is an insult to our past generations and to us,its showing that our moral stance is corrupted and our freedoms are just a little to ''out there''.
Consider the following-
*The disision by the Howard government to ban the recognition of foriegn gay marriage is a sign that our nations morals can not be influrenced by the morals or ''lack off'' other nations.
*Federal law should always have precedence over all states in any laws,if the states have no such laws the federal government should always block a attempt by a state to pass a law,if it is controversal and may not be accepted by other

states,or it is a strong moral ethic principle that has divided our community such as ''gay marriage''.
*Same sex marriages ARE dysfucntional and the participants are second-rate,and you cant deny rights to a subject if that subject never had rights in the first instance,in this case ''gay marriage''.
*Marriage will never ''grow increasingly irrelevant and wither away''.
*Same-sex marriage should not be provided with any type of official public acknowledgement

It intensiely annoys me when people selectively quote from my writings, as seems to occur frequently and as Aslan has done here.

The article to which Aslan refers is not, in any way, an argument against gay marriage. It is merely suggesting that, as for heterosexual partners, marriage is not the be-all and end-all for all same sex couples. Some will prefer other forms of relationship recognition.

Anyone who reads the article would be aware that I argue in it that there should be at least three methods of recognising relationships (marriage, civil unions/registration and de facto laws) that should be available to all partners, same sex and opposite sex.

The following is original work written by and copyright to L.L. 2006
Will be on show at a theatre near you...so watch this space...

It is directed against the Federal Government (and anyone who shares) thier discrimination and denial to provide me as an Australian citizen, equal relationship recognition as that to other citizens of Australia based on our sexual orientation.

We Have A Dream...

Excuse me, I have something to share.
My children are not born yet, and I have this to share with the world and for our dream to become real just before they arrive -
I am being denied a human right, a basic human right - The right to celebrate my love.
The right for my love, which is as real as the very grass you walk on and the birds in the trees, and the food that you eat, and the love that you feel for your husband or wife.
The right to call my love my wife, the right to marry her, the right for our love to be recognised as yours is because I love a woman and mot a man and I am a woman.

My basic rights are being violated. The biggest part of me - my heart, has been held in contempt. Looked down upon and dismissed. In the name of what? Blasphemy! Not religion. Do not use the word religion to cover up and excuse your hatred and denial - your prejudice and your discrimination - as none of these things are high or blessed or godly or spiritual.
Love is.
(I studied and taught Sunday school when I was young. I know the spirit.)
And Love is the Highest Law.
So do not dismiss our love with your fear that we are different to you.
We all come from the same place (or at least we are supposed to)
How many of our for-runners learnt and taught us to love one another - in every colour, shape, culture, background.
Now it's sexual it seems, now it's personal!
Why? - Because of your denial....

We Have a Dream Continued...

You have denied the young to marry and commit to one another with love as their reason.
Enough! That is enough!
Instead, take heed, in common sense -
Bring home the young to their friends and families - and allow everyone their natural right - irrespective of colour, creed, sexual orientation - their right to love one another and have their chosen families unite, marry, celebrate love.

That is what we are here for.
Love is the highest law.
I am not offended you are heterosexual; I do not judge you for it, likewise, do not judge me. Let love be the judge, for, in its wisdom love does not judge.

I could never, would never deny you the right to marry your wife or your husband. But you take that away from me by not giving me my love to have as my wife.
Can you imagine someone taking your beloved away from you? That is what you are doing to us by not "allowing" us to celebrate our love the way you can.
Can you feel what it might feel like to be in someone else's shoes when those shoes are really just like the very ones you walk in?

Just for a moment - one moment, imagine if I told you could not marry your fianc¨¦e - you could not! I was not allowing you to because I judged you for being heterosexual. I would never do such a thing. So do not do it to us. It is not for you to choose whom I love or whom I marry just as it is not for me to choose whom you fall in love with.

The injustice now shared with you. Let my children know it is safe and we are all free to love each other in their world when they arrive.

Love is our right.
- L.L