So what is the big deal with Homosexual people in the 21st century getting married, as consenting adults with the rights of other Australians except one, I cannot see any logic as to why they are being excluded from marriage.

And why are christians so fixated on gays getting married when so many hetrosexual people are divorcing or living in sin and having children out of wedlock. Surely this is against the fundamental beliefs of their religion and where were they when Howard funded young unmarried mothers to have children without fathers, isn't that wrong as well?

Sadly the Liberal party under "Howard the dry" has lost its voice as the party that offers a real choice to the Australian community, as opposed to the talkers on the other side. The very same party that provided Indigenous people with right to vote forty years ago, and the first to have an Aboriginal politician sitting on their side of the house.

Given the hate peddled by christian groups in this country about gays, muslims and any other group of people including other christians, why hasn't the government under this old man stopped funding their generous lifestyles or is that only reserved for muslim groups.

Surely the New Zealand approach is the best compromise? To legalise homosexual marriage would deeply upset many in the community who consider that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman.

To create a new category of relationship, civil union, could benefit many couples who are not homosexual, (with unmarried sisters being an excellent example), as well as those who are homosexual. The legal results would be identical, and thus all groups would achieve what they are after, whilst not needlessly upsetting any other group.

I know that some homosexual groups oppose civil unions, but I cannot work out why.

A quick comment to Runner - a practice I normally avoid.
Runner - why do you and so many of your fellow travellers automatically assume anal intercourse etc between same sex couples, why do you always bring up the same tired old discredited arguments, and why can't you see that denying marriage rights to same sex couples stops nothing nor solves anything?
Is there, as there is with so many poofter bashers, perhaps a touch of old fashioned Freudian reaction formation here? (look it up , runner - I have no doubt whatsoever that you have never read Freud, or indeed anything else other than that well-known collection of ridiculous Hebrew myths - and even that only selectively)

As it stands a gay couple, one working full time one on newstart, have advantages under our social security laws. Even though they are in a relationship the working partners income is irrelevant. Not the same for a heterosexual couple.

Same with a couple of homosexuals on the old age pension. They both get the single amount. A heterosexual couple recieve less.

So it is "swings and roundabouts" surely laws should apply to all irrespective of sexual preference. A couple is a couple, be it sexual, platonic, co-dependence or whatever.

Equal treatment under our laws. Another reason why religious nutters should not impact on our legislation.

runner if you did not know sodomy is not an exlusively homosexual practise.

Hmm IPA member going pro on same sex? Yr not in the pay of the Democrats are you Tim?

Thought the article well written by someone who clearly knows the difference between conservatism and liberalism.

The issue here is not 'equality' but MORALITY.

"Same Sex Couples" has just as much 'dignity' as a man in love with and sexually gratifying himself with a dog or a sheep.

Call me any name you like, but don't call me a man without conviction.

"Same sex" should be limited to FRIENDSHIP and that is "it". But the meaning for this discussion is...

Men who live with men (and Women with women) in a sexual realtionship.

It was an abomination in the days of Moses..and it remains an abomination today. Capitulation to this, is capitulation to a moral relativism of the most heinous kind.. and the ramifications of it will echo down the valley of social/moral death in ways you cannot even begin to imagine.

The Highway to hell is not just an AC/DC song..it is a social reality invading us from every side... slicked up and articulate spokes people who argue its legitimacy.

Why not argue "Adult Child sex is a positive experience"? Well? Why not?

1/ The 'Children of God' sect of the 60's did that.
2/ Orthodox Judaism contains in the Midrash that betrothal is confirmed by intercourse with a child of 3 yrs and 1 day age (yes..I HAVE personally verified this)
http://www.come-and-hear.com/navigate.html
3/ The Quran claims you can divorce pre-pubescent children, from a CONSUMATED marriage.... Surah 65:4

The day I heard a lawyer for the Islamic council of Victoria in the 2 CTF case claim "Truth is not a defense"... my heart was galvanized.
If such a day ever comes to this land.. we are all lost.

NEVER think that this is just 'one important social issue'... it is make or break for our whole social system. If there are no moral standards in this area of life.. then there are NO moral standards... it is clearly just like "Pick-a-Box" morality...

NO- to any legislation which facilitates:

-Same Sex marriages/couples
-Defends child abuse in the name of religion and 'tolerance'.