Martin.

I have had a few little scraps with The Alchemist (Who really is a good person) but reading your crud recently makes me wonder about your state of mental health.

This thread is about homosexuals having the right to legitamise their relationship. I right I agree with.

Your links to alarmist bile make me sick. You and your intellectual colleagues are the problem not the solution.

If you beleive that Islam is the great evil in this world, as you obviously do. I would reply that religion is the great evil in this world.

We do not need another Google God botherer, we have enough already, but at least they have a sense of humour.

I look forward to you running out of steam with your fallacious arguements.

Martin, as Steve says, this thread is about same sex unions, not about religion For your answers, read my previous comments, I'm not going to waste time repeating myself, unlike you lot. Regarding Jung, you need to learn to read, even your own link is at odds with what you say.

Here is a link for you to my comments, pull them apart all you like. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=19083

Coach, as usual nothing to say. Where you got the idea I know nothing about islam, shows how inadequate you are. I don't say much about it, because I haven't deeply studied it., I have read it a few times and have 4 different copies, as well as 15 different versions of the bible dating back to the 15th century, from different sects.

So have a go at me all you like, I enjoy it. Makes my day, as you fall over each other to see who can become the most foolish and historically inadequate..

As for same sex relationships, I 'm all for them, as long as they keep to themselves and don't involve children. I don't believe anyone other than a biological male and female parent can bring up a child in a mentally stable manner, not even single women or men or two of the same sex. Poor kids, so confused about life. Mind you there are exceptions.

Steve, drop me a note, I was going to reply to you, but lost your address.

Martin Ibn Warriq wrote

"The tiny gay minority has no right weakening the meaning of marriage for everyone. An argument I introduced via an external link was that this is this is a kind of totalitarian aim, that they're not thinking of what further damage it will do to society. Prof Shell argued this point. You don't add to the discussion, your refuge is ad hominem argument."

It isn't the tiny gay minority that has weakened the meaning of marriage, it is the vast heterosexual majrity that has weakend marriage, or haven't you noticed the divorce statistics?

It used to be that sex was, by and large, 'reserved' for married couples. It was one reason for getting married. Now that has gone. Children used to be mainly born and raised in marriage - well, I guess that has gone too.

Married used to be for life - hahahahaha

Don't blame the gays for weakening marriage, as an institution it isn't weakened, it is virtually dead, just a pale shadow of what it used to be.

I am not in favour of gay marriage, I just cannot see any reason to object to it.

I am in favour of strengthening marriage, maybe two years separation should be required (as in NZ) for divorce instead of one. Perhaps raise the minimum marital age to 21.

Perhaps we should try to shut down the uselessand wasteful 'wedding industry' - and the monied spent on useless, and untimately meaningless ceremonies, due to the high rate of divorce, should be channelled into areas that may keep people together for real, instead of in their dreams.

Hi neckie
In your last post you stated that morality was the basis for law. Too simplistic I'm afraid. Our laws are based on ancient Roman law, custom & tradition, prejudice, ignorance, an appeal to popular opinion & yes morality as well. As you can well imagine this results in a mishmash. Many of our laws, in some cases, contradict each other. How do we decide between them? Legal precepts.
You come close to this yourself when you wrote "I agree that equality is a very important guiding principle in law. But equality is not, never has been, nor ever will be, the over riding consideration of legislators when they are considering whether laws should be enacted or repealed." Quite correct. The most important legal precept, the one on which ALL laws MUST be based is JUSTICE. This is THE most important guiding principle.
But how do we define justice? Simple! Justice is defined by the Formal Principle of Justice which is "similar cases must be treated similarly." Note: Not the "same" but "similar" cases.
Now let's apply it. Two couples want to get married. Both couples consist of people of legal age, able to give legal consent & consist solely of humans. In other words they are similar. One couple is heterosexual & one couple homosexual. Sounds like the Formal Principle of Justice should apply here. After all both cases ARE similar [not the same but similar]. Now since they are similar & since the Formal Principle of Justice states that "similar cases MUST be treated similarly" it follows that both couples MUST be treated in a similar fashion. Either allow both to marry or forbid both.
Game, set & match. Hope I've given you something to think on. Adieu

Australian Law is based upon the British legal system which was in itself based primarily upon the moral values upheld and promoted by the Christian Church. Historically, homosexuality was considered deviant and unacceptable behaviour because it was so ordained by the Christian God. But we live in a secular age where many of us do not seriously consider that unless we obey a God’s directives, he will punish our society with plague, pestilence, flood, drought or disease. Our laws have evolved to the point where homosexuals now receive a degree of tolerance. But that does not suggest social approval of their activities.

The over riding factor in law today is not Justice, the law today is primarily concerned with finding creative ways for lawyers to generate work for other lawyers. The concept of “Justice” went out of the window when we abolished the death penalty.

Your little example of “Justice” being the ability for “two people” of the same sex to get married falls down on one crucial point. Most people do not consider the union of two people of the same sex to be “marriage.” But because we live in a tolerant society, and because politicians are frightened of the disciplined homosexual vote, Australian society now concedes many of the privileges associated with marriage may now be enjoyed by homosexuals.

Now, one might consider that homosexuals would be happy with how their cause has progressed, but of course they are not. Their next target is total equality and respectability. But here they have a problem. So far, their gains have been easy because the opposition to their lifestyle has mainly come from religious moral values whose traditional power base is on the wane. Opposition to homosexuals today is now ironically being led by secular forces who once may even have fought for homosexual rights. These anti homosexual forces , while still conceding that past homosexual gains are OK, still believe in family values. Homosexuals are now seen to be attacking those family values by their insistence upon marriage equity.

For an idea of how the abuse of traditional sexual morality has unanticipated effects this short article is from the Herald Sun and the author is very concerned about how young people are missing out.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,17232182%255E5001167,00.html

So you see, this is only argument by analogy and its persuasiveness depends of course on how much you're inclined to the point of view to begin with. All I ask is a little doubt from those whose reasoning to them seems unassailable.

Instead of a spirit of entitlement, please gay activists please, see what service you will be doing by limiting your demands. You must know our society has gone a little mad. Don't exploit it. Yes I'm demanding more from you than from heterosexuals.

Tragedies are tragedies precisely because the protagonist has no choice but to walk into a trap that he cannot possibly anticipate. It is this that overturning five thousand years of accumulated wisdom concerning human partnerships is destined to lead to. Arguments from progress from slavery, from prohibitions on interracial marriage are not valid and have been dealt with in added links.

I appeal to homosexual people who do not share the gay activist agenda to speak up for the sake of us all.

Marriage has been denigrated for too long and we all suffer. Leave it in peace.

And heterosexuals who are mostly responsible for its breakdown, please stop.