It never ceases to amaze me that many can't accept an opinion other than their own without spilling out hatred. The fact that one believes the act of sodomy is unnatural does not make someone a nazi. To sanction every form of depravity might make someone feel self righteous but it certainly does not help towards a healthy society.

I have known very nice people who cheat on their wives and have even been convicted of child abuse. It is quite possible to like the person but hate what they do ( and certainly not sanction it). I personally know and like some people who practice homosexuality. I don't like what they do.

Leigh
I'm not not Pan or a homosexual but allow Me to respond to your question. You ask Pan to show you how homosexuals are "normal". It depends what you mean by the term "normal"! If you mean something that the majority do then you're quite right, homosexuality isn't "normal" in that sense. Neither are left-handed people or people with red hair. Are we to stop them getting married because they are not following the norm?

Ah you say but that's different. They are born that way & anyone born a particular way [like left-handed people] are a part of nature & therefore normal. Homosexuals are born that way too. Just like heterosexuals. The latest research has shown that homosexuality is found in in almost every single animal species on Earth. Are we to suppose that lizards woke up one day & thought "Hmmm, i feel like being gay today :)" Sort of beggars belief doesn't it? Or are we to suppose that animals acting on instinct are suddenly abnormal & unnatural :) That would be idiotic wouldn't it?

My point is this. It's foolishness to discriminate against someone merely because of the way they were born. They can no more change their sexuality than you can change yours. Therefore if it's "normal" for you to fancy women because you were born that way then it's "normal" for homosexuals to fancy their own sex because of the way they were born. Seems simple doesn't it?

My partner and I are 22 years old, have been in a wonderful relationship for 3½ years, and plan to spend the rest of our lives together. We have the unconditional support of both our families, but not the law. I don't understand why our love is considered such a threat to others.

Runner claims our love and commitment is "depraved". Wrong. It is normal and natural for us, just as heterosexual love is normal for him.

He then asks, “What next?", and suggests that “dog marriage” will soon be legal. Aside from displaying a fundamental ignorance of the feelings of same-sex couples and demeaning my love for my partner, this is a perfect example of “slippery slope” argumentation: claiming one thing will lead to another, without establishing any logical connection between the two.

Runner also argues that gay marriage undermines a sense of morality. Not true. To ignore loving same-sex couples, to make their love and commitment invisible, and to deny them a whole swathe of rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples - that's what's immoral.

Moreover, same-sex couples who happen to have children are currently being punished (eg. in Medicare and tax rebates). The denial of legal protection of their families creates an obvious insecurity for all involved. This, as former Family Court judge Alastair Nicholson points out, amounts to cruelty to children.

Leigh argues that if same-sex couples want equal rights, they should "start acting like everyone else". My partner and I live in the outer-suburbs, we both work, pay taxes, take the dog for walks, buy groceries: all the things that other couples do. We have never been to Mardi Gras and I doubt we ever will. Haven’t we “earned” our rights already?

Plerdsus claims that marriage is Federal power, not a state one. True. But civil unions are not marriage. There is a clear legal distinction. A State can enact Civil Union laws that make no references whatsoever to marriage. And, if the laws did conflict, the High Court could simply strike them down.

Jonathan Wilkinson is right: it's time for civil unions for Victoria.

I feel the need respond to the baseless and ill-informed assertions by "Diver Dan" and "Mickijo".

Firstly, Dan claims gay people have his "sympathy". We are not looking for sympathy. We simply want equal rights and protection under the law.

I am in a perfectly happy, healthy and fulfilling relationship with my same-sex partner. We have a rewarding life, and plan to live together until we are wrinkly and old.

Contrary to his assertion, John Howard did not get it right. He arrogantly rode roughshod over an independently elected legislature, and in the process, undermined the democratic rights of all ACT citizens and denied fairness to thousands of same-sex couples.

Dan then argues that gay marriage "legitimises" our love. That's not true: our love is already legitimate. And in case he didn't know, gay sex has also been legal (in Victoria) for over 25 years.

He is also wrong to claim that gay relationships are "opposed to social norms". The recent Australian Survey of Social Attitudes found that two-thirds of the population accept same-sex relationships. It seems that only Dan's homophobic attitudes violate social norms.

"Mickijo" argues that marriage was "intended for man and woman". Interestingly, marriage was also intended as a financial transaction, allowing a husband to buy his wife as property. Thankfully, marriage laws have since changed.

He then argues that marriage is about "progeny". The obvious question, then, is: Shouldn’t we then deny marriage to older and infertile couples? And aside from this, you cannot stop same-sex couples having children. Marriage would provide their families with legal protection and security.

As for polygamy, it is a totally different question. Gay marriage leads no faster to polygamy than heterosexual marriage does. Same-sex love perfectly reflects everything that is fundamental to marriage: love, commitment, support and intimacy. Why not allow it?

I am utterly hetrosexual. I've been married and have children.
I have no problem with Homosexual Unions. Go for it. Legislate for them BUT don't refer or allude to them in any way as marriages... for they can never be that. Now let's all take a dose of reality here. Homosexual Unions unlike Marriages cannot result in Issue. Facts are facts and marriage in our society recognises the ultimate aim of marriage is to produce and nurture the next generation.

That opinion is not bigoted, discrimitory or even illiberal. It just recognises facts.

Whether Homosexual Unions attract the same property, workplace rights etc as marriage is another matter. That to me is the only point that needs discussion. I have a view and it is a very liberal one.



nor are Homosexual Unions

Australia 2004

111,000 hetrosexual marriages.

52,747 hetrosexual divorces