Alan Grey your intemperate rant about moral relativism only thinly disguises your belief that you should “get to decide what is right and wrong” – you and no-one else.

Furthermore, you are prepared to resort to the most underhand tricks to push this view, such as knowingly fabricating the lies and illogicalities you have given us here.

1. No-one wanted to re-define marriage until our federal Government went ahead and did it two years ago. The existing definition of marriage actually allowed for same-sex unions, but in the first instance of an Australian government removing a human right, our political leaders chose to exclude us from the right to marry.

2. Polygamy is not a consequence of same-sex marriage. It has never been, and never will be (I’m presuming this is what you were referring to when you added inaccuracy to intemperance by writing “polgyamy”). The only contemporary instance of someone marrying a pet (http://snipurl.com/s5nd) was in a country where same-sex unions are not recognised. Same-sex marriages haven’t pushed the Netherlands or Spain onto your slippery slope, nor any other countries.

Peddling these lies, you conveniently forget that modern marriage requires informed consent, which is not available from animals or children. No advocates of same-sex marriage have argued that the requirement for informed consent be abandoned.

3. The claim that “moral relativism is irrational nonsense” is particularly offensive, coming from someone who relies so heavily on the slippery slope fallacy (http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/ss.htm). No-one here is arguing for moral relativism. Many here are arguing that valuing human rights requires us to provide same-sex attracted human beings with the same opportunities as everyone else.

It just requires a little human compassion, Alan. Try it.

The whole argument could have been averted if enough Australian people believed in God.

When you do believe in God you don't need legislations to accommodate your perversions. You accept God promises, threats, and plans for his creation.

But alas that is not the case anymore. Society is taking the role of amoral and immoral education replacing God’s Eternal Word with pieces of legislations.

What next? Ménage a trois marriages perhaps?

Those who don't see why their perversion is criticised (by the majority I dare to think) have lost the ability to identify "good and bad". Thy blame religion, beliefs and head of states, well everyone but themselves.

Have you thought about young children in our society? How can one teach them values and morals if perversions of all sort is acceptable, deemed “normal”and even legal around them?

I watched in horror the other night how 14 year old kids are having babies just to get the $3,000 government handout. What morals did they pick from society? Did they give a second thought about the life and future of their offspring?

Sorry - I cannot sympathise with the homosexual lobby - the ramifications of legalising their behaviour is enormous. I love Australia too much to watch her deteriorate as a result of minorities demands.

JohnK,

You do all of the normal things except one. And that is the big one. Males and females are different for good reason – procreation.

A small number of people are born with mixed up hormones; these people act differently from a very early age, long before they even sense that they are different from their peers. Even with these tragic cases, abnormal sexual activity does not necessarily ensue.

But, it beggars belief that the number of people now coming out of the woodwork, taking up same-sex partnerships and demanding ‘equality’ of recognition with normal relationships can all share the same problem with those poor devils.

Deliberate homosexual/lesbian behaviour is abominable; equally reprehensible are the attempts of otherwise intelligent and sane people who seek to legitimise same sex relationships in law.

Religious beliefs, political beliefs, and all the usual furphies spat about by same-sexers and apologists, ignore the fact that every human being has the ability to make up his or her own mind about right and wrong. In common with most radical minorities, this group shows contempt and hate for the majority.

Someone referred to a survey which apparently found that two thirds of the Australian public “accepted” homosexuality. Two thirds of the population probably accept many things because they are there, and they are too complacent and/or afraid of disagreeing with any trendy, politically correct rubbish, no matter how gross. It doesn’t mean that they like the particular thing or approve of it. The only real say people have is in electoral polls, and they generally punish politicians who move radically away from what they accept as ‘right’. The ACT Chief Minister has yet to face this test after his outrageous proposal. Fortunately, the Federal Government acted properly, and legally, in quashing the legislation.

Misguided decriminalisation of homosexuality will never be overturned, but no decent-thinking person should stand by and allow it to be actually encouraged by mischievous politicians, groups and individuals misusing the concept of “rights” and “equality” to get their way

Bosk, please try and stick to what I actually said as opposed to misrepresenting my position. I know that it is a common tactic amongst your type as it is easier to make stuff up than discuss things rationally, but try and stick to what I said, not your own fantasy world.

Marriage was always heterosexual. There were certainly homosexual relationships back then. As for whether their societies were destroyed by it, that is a lot harder to say. Rome's decadence clearly played a huge part in it's downfall.

But then again Bosk, you are putting words in my mouth. I never anything was inevitable. Perhaps you have trouble understanding simple logic. It seems that is the case by your pitiful comments. Either that or you are willfully dishonest. Your call really.

Lets try it again, and this time I will try and restrict it to smaller words so you can follow. The same logic that is used for justifying homosexual marriage can be used for justifying polygamy. Even homosexual activists have admitted this is the case.

As a clear example, you definition of a civil union doesn't exclude polygamy. And why would you discriminate against those who are paedosexuals? Isn't that just another orientation? Maybe they are 'born' that way too and as you said earlier "It's foolishness to discriminate against someone merely because of the way they were born". (The complete lack of scientific evidence for this in both homosexuality and paedophilia is staggering. Considering the many people who have changed their orientation, this hypothesis is falsified - Your latest research comment is a joke right?)

As for relativism, you certainly sound like a relativist to me. You may try to dress it up with nice sounding words, but what foundation do you have for deciding what is right or wrong? Why is it 'just' to encourage people to harm each other?

To me this is a subject that I could write a thousand words on, background: 50 y.o. married with a child hetrosexual Catholic male. View, the Bible is open to interpretation on this subject, we have Christian homosexuals we have Christian homophobics, my life experience is this, I Love all God's ceations, whether they be my ilk or not, God has placed everyone and everything on Earth for a reason, that reason is not persecusion.
I met a lady 10 years ago, who I thought was a lovely person, so began a 10 year friendship, as the friendship progressed I discovered she was gay, I didn't turn away from her, instead I have included her as part of my extended family. To my wife and I she is a valued and trusted friend, and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
I reserve my fury for serial killers, child molesters and other horrific anti-social behaviours. My friend is "normal" whatever that is, in every other way except her sexual preference. We don't burn witches at the stake anymore, and as far as I am concerned we should not discriminate against those who are born with homosexual preference any more than we should someone who is born blind.

If we are to be moralistic, do we condem the churches because of the child abuse perpertrated against children, in my view it is stupid to condem gay people, and refuse to recognise their relationships in law, whilst similtaeneously not rising again peodphilia, extra marital affairs and other breaches of supposed morality.

I dislike hypocrisy in any form, so whilst the above is accepted as just part of life, I will remain a faithfull friend to my homosexual mate, and any other homosexuals for that matter, they are not interested sexually in me, so why should I discriminate?

Those who are opposed to civil unions for adult, mutually consenting same sex human couples seem to fall into various categories.

1.Religious. Prove that what you believe, or what it says in your favourite book, is God's will. Or accept that your opinion is unsubstantiated conjecture.

2. Those who "don't like what they allegedly do". Do you approve of everything that heterosexuals may or not do sexually? Bear in mind that a lot of heterosexual sex can't produce children either. Would you like to see some heterosexual practices banned, or at least officially disapproved of?

3. Those who claim that what they believe is "natural", or it's always been this way therefore it should always remain this way. This is also conjecture.

4. The "slippery slope" theorists. Let's draw an analogy. Let's say that two roads in my area currently have a maximum speed limit of 70kph. Because of various aspects, there is a campaign to have one of them increased to 80kph and the other reduced to 60kph. The slippery slope people may oppose these measures on the grounds that if one is increased to 80, then the agitation will continue until it is increased to 150. On the other hand, the other one will eventually be reduced to 30kph.

The reason this will not happen is that each one will be assessed strictly on known facts and [hopefully] nothing else will be taken into consideration.

There is no logical reason why same sex couples should be denied a civil union, something which the rest of us take for granted. I have no axe to grind on this. As far as I am aware, I am totally heterosexual [if this is physically/psychologically possible].

As for the religious people who would try to force us all to accept some things and deny us all other things, just to suit their unsubstantiated agendas, then I don't wonder that so many of us retain our spirituality, but don't want any involvement with organised religion.