Or alternatively, DFXK, to disallow "gay marriage" is to change the meaning of traditional marriage to a simple expression of procreation, which diminishes its other facets - sexuality, social stability, lifelong friendship. Sorry to be awkward.

Traditionally the Liberal Party over many years has been seen as holding 'conservative' views, made up of freedom of expression and the rights of the Individual and the rule of law.

As such the Liberal Party should embrace and emcompass diversity of it's members, and as the ruling party, practice compassion, to members of the gay community, as it would any other minority groups.

The Prime Minister, on the racially motivated riots in Sydney recently, pointed out that 'his' government does not tolerate discrimination based on race or religion, to which the Federal Leader of the ALP agrees, all I am asking is that they extend these sentiments to this community.

What the author Mr Kings has intended to express is that, one must be able to accept these individuals for whom and what they are, with all their differences of opinion.

'Traditional' society does not necessarily have to agree with them, however by allowing them the freedom to express their views and sexuallity, we become better human beings, by promoting a more tollerable and understanding society.

These are the bedrocks of religious compassion and tollerance.

Ah, but DFXK, it is also true that only children born in marriage experiance divorce! There are upsides and downsides to every way in which we organise our society, but I feel that actively discriminating against people who happen to be sexually attracted to people of the same sex is cruel and actively works against supporting the concept of social equality.

All of the actions to exclude homosexual relationships from having equal recognition under law (and I am referring to all laws regarding relationships between consenting adults) are in themselves doing the most damage to ideals/beliefs/whatever that people seem to be trying to protect.

Given that the laws of Australia do not require people to be of any particular religious persuasion it is my belief that any religious connotations of a legally recognised relationship between consenting adults should be a matter of faith or religious observance for the individuals involved and anyone else in their religious community (For those of little faith you are on your own, no laws of the country to fall back on).

Can someone please tell me how allowing homosexual relationships between consenting adulats to have equal recognition in law is diminishing the value of other existing legally recognised relationships between consenting adults or any legally recognised relationships between consenting adults yet to be?

Making references to homosexuals in the same sentence with paedophiles and adulterers (as DXFK did) or using the term 'unnatural' without clear scientific merit or the 'm' word is not allowed.

All submissions to be < 350 words and double spaced.

And to get back on topic it does appear IMHO that Richard Kings has made a good case that the liberal party are not being true to their founding priniciples (why am I not suprised ....)

lil_ol_me what is the 'm' word?

lil_ol_me I thought DFXK's posts quite calm and reasonable (even if I don't quite agree with them as IMHO I think homosexuals (and heterosexuals) should be able to enter into a "Civil Union" with the same rights as marriage). DFXK actually says, "Tolerance for homosexuals is necessary, and they should be given no hinderance in their desire to sleep or live together". Quite frankly, I've heard a lot worse!

lil_ol_me to answer part of your question “or any legally recognised relationships between consenting adults yet to be” there could be a problem if people want to enter into a marriage type relationship where there are more than two people – eg. one man wants five wives. Also you can't enter more than 350 words in one post - the automated system will not allow it.

DFXK, good point re homosexuals choosing occasionally to enter into conventional marriages. Homosexuals also procreate.... wouldn't it be better for their children to be brought up in a stable Civil Union?

Pedant, the 'm' word is marriage. The word means different things to different people which makes it very difficult to have a consistent debate.

Re: DXFK. I never said that the posts were unreasonable or otherwise. My comment was specifically referring to the following as written by DXFK "To argue that whatever comes naturally to a person is the basis for what is right is not the Christian way, and the Cross, the symbol of sacrifice to a greater good, should be the lead for those who are of that inclination, just as it should be to those wishing to engage in intercourse with children, or with someone to whom they are not married." These extraneous comments struck me as gratuitous and offensive.

Re: Number of people in a relationship. I must admit that I had not considered this. I myself would not participate in a polygamous relationship but it is certainly allowed by other religions. Why should only Christian religious beliefs be enshrined in the law? Granted there are numerous difficulties (legal, social) with polygamy. But in the interests of not 'throwing out the baby with the bath water' assume a relationship between two people.

Re: 350 or less ... indeed it will not! My poor attempt at humour.

I never made any statement regarding children. A 'stable Civil Union' is not a prerequisite to fertility nor does it require the union to be heterosexual only.