The first thing I would point out is that Democrats Senator Greig is not above using stereotypes to prejudge the political motivations of his political opponents. It seems that when it comes to stereotyping and prejudice, it is permissible for the pink PC brigade to do it, but it is PC verboten for rednecks. Perceptive people call that hypocrisy.

Senator Greig admits that neither side of Parliament is keen on giving gay marriages the green light. The reason why, of course, is that it would be electoral suicide for any party which openly supported it. Mr Greig”s fanciful claim that the majority of Australians support gay marriages is obviously not a view held by either the Coalition or Labor. Most people grudging conceded that homosexuality should be decriminalised, but that did not bestow respectability on the practice.

And this is what the homosexuals most desperately want. Respectability. Their continuing campaigns to have homosexual unions legitimised, is their way of attaining respectability by fait accompli.

Unfortunately for homosexuals, the majority of people in my socio economic caste view homosexuality either with distaste or hilarity. The low regard which Australians have for homosexuals is further eroded by prominent homosexuals like Bob Brown openly endorsing anti Australian ideals like Republicanism, “sorry” books, multiculturalism and reflexive anti Americanism, while going into bat for traitors like David Hicks. Their rationale seems to be, that as an “oppressed” minority themselves, they feel the need to hit back at the society which shuns them by joining forces with any other minority who have a bit of a public relations problem.

Talking about electoral suicide, why don't we get bipartisan support for voluntary euthanasia, when about 80% of Australians have wanted it for years and this support crosses the whole of the political spectrum? Surely that wouldn't be electoral suicide, would it? Answer: Because the Pope doesn't want it.

And that's basically why gay people don't get equality.

http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/new/incathcircles/iccbottompg2vol8no3.htm

'Vatican Announces Campaign Against Same-Sex Marriage
The Vatican has announced a global campaign against gay marriage in a strongly-worded document released by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The document, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons," restates the Vatican's views that homosexual unions are immoral, unnatural and harmful. It says that Catholic politicians have a "moral duty" to oppose legislation permitting gay marriage and adoption by gay people.' etc etc etc.

So apparently a substantial number of our so-called representatives have a "moral duty" to put the Pope first when it comes to decision making. And it shows, and not just about gay rights either.

If just some Australians are denied justice, then justice is not guaranteed for any of us. And unfortunately, many Australians seem to be unable to understand that.

Please consider this.
The concept of the law is that it plays no favourites. We are all equal before it. At least in theory. Now if we can legally discriminate against a group for religious reasons [the pope or the bible said they are evil] or social reasons [we just don't like "those" people] then why not other groups as well? Why not Jews, Christians, red haired people? After all we can all find a reason to be against some group? And if it is allright to write bias into the laws against one group then why not others? You write laws against me and my group, he writes laws against you and your group & so it goes. Once bias has been legally recognised then we have set a sad precedent & we don't know where it will lead.
The sad truth is if the law doesn't protect everyone equally then eventually it will protect no one at all. Just a thought.

The case against gay marriage from the perspective of liberalism by Prof. Susan Shell.

http://www.thepublicinterest.com/archives/2004summer/article1.html

"All notions of marriage derive and build on the fact of biological generation."

"Like death, generation defines our human nature.If it is discriminatory to deny gay couples the right to 'marry', is it not equally unfair to deny living individuals the right to attend their own 'funerals'?"

"The requirement that homosexual attachments be publicly recognized as no different from, and equally necessary to society as, heterosexual attachments is a fundamentally illiberal demand. Gay relations bear a less direct relation to the generative act in its full psychological and cultural complexity than relations between heterosexual partners."

For perspectives greater than liberalism:

‘Why even the Pope has to whisper’
www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA10Ak01.html

"Europe is infected by a strange lack of desire for the future. Children, our future, are perceived as a threat to the present, as though they were taking something away from our lives. Children are seen - at least by some people - as a liability rather than as a source of hope. Here it is obligatory to compare today's situation with the decline of the Roman Empire." (Pope Benedict XVI)

‘Why Europe chooses extinction’ www.atimes.com/atimes/front_page/ED08Aa01.html

How does an open and tolerant civilization tolerate people and ideas that will destroy an open and tolerant civilization?
‘Death by Secularism’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GH02Aa01.html

Circulating fake money cheats those who receive it and can damage the economy. In the same way giving same-sex couples and temporary relationships the same status as marriage devalues the currency of marriage. Only 0.2% of all couples are homosexual.
http://www.christian.org.uk/html-publications/counterfeitmarriage.htm

Comedienne Julia Gorin on the stupidity of liberal ‘tolerance’.
www.jewishworldreview.com/julia/gorin120105.php3

http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/marco.html see here from some of the radical political goals of gay activists.

The conclusion therefore is that gays and misguided secularists don’t realise that they’re trying to extract the last drops of moral capital from the west’s Christian heritage. They don’t know it because “History anaesthetizes those it is about to discard” “Rome, Czar, Louis XIV etc. (then Europe, Australia . . )

Not THE conclusion, Martin. YOUR conclusion, based on selected opinions. And those of us who don't agree with you are "misguided secularists", are we? I suppose that using selected websites makes a change from using selected Biblical verses, but the principle is the same.

I'm hetero. I married many years ago in a church ceremony. We tried to make a go of it, but our marriage didn't work out for either of us. So we eventually got divorced under Australia's one year apart option. Our divorce did not devalue or undermine anyone else's marriage.

After having a few lady friends, I met a divorced lady with whom I spent 22 wonderful years, which sadly ended when I lost her. We didn't get married, it was not necessary. Again, our relationship didn't adversely affect anyone else.

I've been lucky enough to meet another delightful divorced lady and we're very good for one another. The probability is that we will not see any need to get married. Our business and no-one else's.

I have gay friends, some of whom are in stable, long-term relationships. I think that at least some of them may like the opportunity to formalise their relationships. Some may like a religious blessing as part of that formalisation. No other human being, Australian or otherwise, would be adversely affected by such a ceremony or religious blessing, unless he/she chose to be offended at the mere thought that it was happening.

I can't be bothered with such busybodies. Quite simply they should just learn to live and let live. It's just unfortunate that so many Australian politicians, led by the nose by selfish religious extremists, haven't got what it takes to tell the busybodies to mind their own business.

Rex there are no arguments in your post.

You claim selectivity but do you offer any reply to the content of the links? Any counter arguments? Your anectodes are interesting but I'm not sure how you think divorce is trivial and has no public affects. I don't mean to tell you marriage is easy but the post was about homosexual marriage. Did you read the links?

I'd much rather be proved wrong than be called names, 'busybody' just won't cut it in terms of public debate. We are dealing with very important issues - did you not get the sense of that in anything that has been posted?

If someone quotes the Bible selectively ("Even the Devil can quote Scripture for his own purpose") then make sure you don't let them get away with it. But does that mean the most widely read book ever, revered as the Word of God recorded by his children, is of no value? If you mean belief does not assure righteousness. Agreed. "you believe in God. So what! The demons believe in God (and tremble) James 2:19. But how else am I to argue if I don't choose something to argue with? Remember selectivity cuts both ways, the same charge could be levelled at you, best stick to the content. In other words, the content I select is either true or false. Stick to that.

Rex you need to present good arguments. Make sure you do a google search 'fallacial arguments' get the list and then avoid all of these. Look forward to your contribution.

Godbless.
P.s. (I honestly don't mean to be patronising) Australia needs its citizens informed. I genuinely hope you can get around the arguments enough to persuade me.

Sincerely M.I.W