Celivia. I have 4 children. 2 boys and 2 girls. I have a son who is 9 yeard old and already being referred to as gay by many only because he is kind, sensitive, caring and wont play football or any rough games. Society pushes our sensitive boys to become gay.....it seems that if these kindly natured boys want to be accepted in a group they have to become gay otherwise their life is just filled with bullying and harrassment.

If any of my children became gay I would say to them the same thing my parents said to me. That I would love them unconditionally but when they were in my house I would ask them to show respect and take into consideration my views and feelings. I don't particularly want to see them being affectionate or physical in my home. What they do in their own home is their business but I would still not support gay people being 'married". They want to live together fine, they want to pretend they are 'the same' as a married couple fine. But at the end of the day they are NOT THE SAME as a married couple - they are two men/women. They should have the decency to acknowledge that and to respect how it makes hetrosexual couples feel. Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman - period.

Coraliz,

That's almost but not quite what I said.

It may well be that sociology can show that a good, loving heterosexual relationship is the most ideal form of family for raising children. I don't know. My point was more along the following lines:

1. Heterosexual parenting couples span a wide spectrum, from excellent to abysmal.

2. Homosexual parenting couples do (and, in increasing numbers, will) span a wide spectrum, from excellent to abysmal.

3. Therefore, some homosexual couples will provide better parenting than some heterosexual couples.

4. Therefore, the key factor to consider is not whether the parenting couple is heterosexual or homosexual; rather, it is whether the parenting couple is closer to the "excellent" or the "abysmal" end of the scale.

To individualise, a child who has excellent heterosexual parents is better off than a child who has poor (or even average) homosexual parents. Similarly, however, a child who has excellent homosexual parents is better off than a child who has poor or average heterosexual parents.

The questions which matter are not "are my parents gay" but rather "do my parents love me?" "do my parents enrich me and help me grow?" "do my parents have the means to provide for me?" and "do my parents love one another".

Is that a bit clearer?

Anthony

Jolanda,

Why should gay and lesbian couples "be decent" about it if hetero couples can't be?

You obviously have issues with homosexuality, which is getting in the way of you seeing gay and lesbian couples as human beings and as such due the same respect as heterosexuals.

Whether you call it marriage or something else, why shouldn't two people who love each other be able to commit to one another and be recognised under the law?

When did Massachusetts become a "country"?

Jolanda, I’m glad that you would, at least partly, accept your children if they turn out to be homosexual; there is nothing more sad than parents rejecting their own children. Isn’t their child’s happiness the most important thing?
As long as you know that your childrens’ sexuality is a big part of them.

Hmmmm....perhaps heterosexuals should have the ‘decency’ to acknowledge that a same sex relationship are as valueable as a heterosexual relationship and they should have the right to have this recognised.

Marriage does not have to be a union between a man and a woman; the definiton can be revised as has happened in several countries. Times change, the zeitgeist moves on, and Australia is lagging behind.

I am all for homosexual people having the freedom to behave in the same way as heterosexual people do inside our communities and in society generally.
If heterosexual people kiss in the street, why should homosexual people not be able to do the same? They have nothing to be ashamed of, they have nothing to hide.
It should be widely accepted that they hold hands, hug, kiss like any heterosexual couple without having fear of violence by homophobics.
Perhaps that’s what BD means with ‘dangerous’: that homosexual people get bashed just because of their sexuality.

I think it is important that homosexual people get full support of the heterosexual community. They are in such minority that the government ignores their needs and wishes. They need our help and more people need to speak out against such form of discrimination.

Both the Bible and Koran are homophobic and it is therefore admirable that some of the Christian denominations have accepted homosexuality despite what the Bible says.
I don’t fully understand religious homophobes- in their view, did God not create people including homosexual people? Did God make a mistake or mess things up? What’s the full story?

Both major political parties oppose change to the Marriage Act. Given the nature of politics, it is reasonable to draw the conclusion that they believe a majority of the electorate is opposed to it. This might be at odds with the Galaxy poll, but pollsters are often wrong.

By definition, marriage is restricted by governments world-wide for the coupling of one man and one woman. This is true regardless of the secular or religious orientation of those respective governments and is only recent (and rare) that a government has broken ranks.

'Discrimination' is inherent to decision-making and affirmative action policies are a good example of where discrimination is regarded as positive. In deciding (say) that a person has to be a certain age to marry a Government is discriminating. All decision-making involves discrimination of some nature. Although alleged discrimination or individual human rights might be the stimulus for suggesting change, it is not necessarily a justification for change.

There are many rights and entitlements that attach to marriage and I would suspect that the Democrats' estimate of 58 Acts that impact on marriage could be an underestimate, because our concept of marriage involving one man and one woman is woven through all areas of our culture and regulations.

The change proposed by the Democrats is radical and far-reaching. The effects down the track can only be speculated upon. From its long history people already know what marriage is about and they need to know up-front the practical effects of any change. How will it affect parenting and children? Will school curriculums need to be changed? What about textbooks? Will use of the words 'mother' and father be seen as discriminatory and need to be phased out? What are the individual and public costs of same sex marriage? What about the Family Law Act and administration of family law? Do all homosexuals agree with extending the coverage of Family Law to their relationships or does the change only suit an elite?

The ball is in the Democrats' court to identify and resolve the practical questions now not later.