Arjay. To refute your arguments:

“The reason why the gay/lesbian movement want to assume the title of gay marriage,is that of adoption.”
No, it isn’t. That’s one reason, but gay partners want to marry for the same gamut of reasons that straight people do.

“how can two mothers of lesbian decent,objectively raise a male hetrosexual child whose sexuality they utterly distain?”
Gay people don’t disdain heterosexuality. They just don’t share it. You might just as easily ask how can a widowed father raise a daughter, when he does not share her sexuality.

“There is no balance or role models for either sex to find security or stability.”
There is a responsibility on gay parents to make sure their kids have role models of the same sex.

“There are many hetrosexual men who were abused as children,get married and as old men,revert to the perversion that destroyed them as child…”
You are talking about child sexual abuse, not homosexuality.

“...yet the homosexual lobby persists in wanting to lower the age of consent to 14 or lower.”
No they don’t. The Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby want the homosexual and heterosexual age of consent to be the same.

“Sex today in the popular media is used a a tool of power,so even children are encouraged to display sexual prowess way beyond their innocent years.”
I agree. This is a valid critique of culture, but nothing to do with gay or straight sex.

“Their argument is that it has failed,therefore they should be able to replace it with a concept of their choice.”
No it isn’t. Their argument is that they love their partners in the same way as straight people do, so they should be allowed to marry them. They believe in marriage — that’s why they want to be able to marry.

If you have any serious arguments, let’s hear them. But if you merely want to express your hatred of gay people, I, for one, could care less.

Arjay there have been some studies which found that children raised by lesbian couples are just as well adjusted as children in heterosexual parent families. Children need a loving family regardless of what the sex of their parents is.

Vanilla et al are right; I still haven’t seen any reasonable arguments against SSM.
Their arguments don’t seem to differ much from the arguments in the past about interracial or interfaith marriage. (God put us on different continents…it’s unnatural…children of interracial couples will suffer…) Next!
Yeah we’ve heard it all before but the arguments were moot then and are moot now.

Why do opposers of SSM act as if marriage has always been the same without any change? That’s either ignorant or ridiculous.
There have been quite some changes to the ‘traditional marriage’ image throughout history already. More change is due- change has happened in other countries and all remains well. Australia will eventually catch up, wait and see :)

Is it only the people who are completely obsessed with other people’s sex lives or with nonsense from the Bible that protest the most?

Arjay said: "It seems that both stickman and DavidJS can only revert to ad homiem [sic] arguments and ridicule,to advance their case.Just refute my arguments and refrain from personal attacks on my spelling prowess."

You made arguments? Sorry I must have missed them.. and I think you meant "RESORT to ad homiem [sic] arguments by the way.

Well Arjay, poor little delicate soul that you obviously are, I made 4 points in that previous post, precisely one of which was ad HOMINEM, ie, that you should use spell checker. And if you don't have enough respect for the people that have to read the drivel that you spout, to use spell checker, then how aboout reading what you write before you post it?? C'mon, I know you can spell better that that!

And since you insist upon making blatantly bigoted and offensive anti-gay statements without any basis in fact (ad homonem??), knowing they will be read by gay posters to this site, then I will continue to meet stupdidity with ridicule - let's just consider it a little balancing of the ledger, shall we?

Well, Arjay I think I refuted your arguments and threw in one or two personal attacks as well. However, I maybe should "play the ball and not the man". Much like Leigh, for example, who opposes my arguments and yet never stoops to slander.

One argument I will expand on is to do with democracy and gay rights. It is virtually impossible to find a country today or in the past where not only gays were treated badly but human rights overall were regularly violated. Islamic fundamentalist regimes, communist regimes, non-communist one party states and fascist regimes all seem to have this in common. In other words, gay freedom appears to be a marker for greater freedom overall.

So, in countries where same-sex marriage is valid in law, the state has effectively backed off (to a degree) from regulating sexual relations between consenting adults. And that is how it should be.

You lot can think all you like.Gays have an inordinate amount of political power due to their affluence in our society and want to turn the world into an image of their own liking.You buggered the word "gay" which once meant happiness and now you want to bugger the word "marriage' to suit your own selfish ends.

As previously stated, I don't care what you call your "gay unions". You can have all the legal rights of heterosexuals,that is your business,but do not try to assume the title of marriage,that is not your domain.We don't try to steal Lesbian or Gay logos to pervert or distort your sexual image,so how is it your right to encroach on an institution that traditionally has the balanced union of both sexes?

The Gays were once really happy not to be abused or bashed,now they want total power and have become like those who were once their oppressors.

"Gays have an inordinate amount of political power". Too true. Can you believe we even have a openly gay elected senator in federal parliament? That's like, almost 2% representation - and everyone knows gays make up like 0.00001% of the population, and they hardly even qualify as human beings anyway.