CJ

Your last post only highlights the bankruptcy of your thoughts.

Rather than 'spell it all out', which btw you haven't yet, why don't you just answer my simple couple of questions?

And while you are at it why not try to admit, at the very least to yourself, you've constantly assigned values and statements to me that are just not true.

You've throughout this 'debate' merely heaped scorn and derision onto me, all of it uncalled for, and you've never once addressed the concerns and issues I've raised ... Like I have yours ... and you reckoned I am small-minded. Ha!

I love a good exchange of ideas, and truly, I'd be delighted to hear some solid arguments challenging my view that nothing less than full equality for same-sex-attracted people is good enough.

However they're not to be found here. So far, the opponents of same-sex marriage have come up with:

Some criminals are also gay
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8779#139181

Rodney Croome made a factual error in his blog once
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8779#139317

An organisation of which Rodney Croome is a member had an inaccurate statistic in one of its press releases
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8779#139251

Marriage is a religious institution
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8779#139204

Same-sex marriage will lead to bigamy/polygamy
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8779#139221

If you can marry your partner of choice then you’ll be able to marry your first-degree relatives
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8779#139742

Some homosexuals have children
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8779#139846

It amazes me that once the discussion turns to same-sex-attracted people, otherwise well-meaning intelligent human beings completely abandon all compassion, fairness and intellectual rigour. Rather than disputing our right to equality on its own merit, the opponents of equality are only capable of raising false claims and irrelevant straw issues. They attempt to discredit us by associating gay people with every other thing they find personally distasteful. They try to exclude us from civil rights by making claims about marriage that simply aren't true ('marriage is a religious institution'). They justify withholding rights from same-sex-attracted people with attacks on one gay individual.

The issue of same-sex marriage will be decided solely on its own merits, not on the basis of all the irrelevant distractions and lies that its opponents raise against it. My best advice to the opponents of same-sex marriage is to carry on undeterred. As we've seen with the superbly silly "National Organisation for Marriage" campaign in the US, no-one discredits the case against same-sex marriage quite as well as the people arguing it: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/224789/april-16-2009/the-colbert-coalition-s-anti-gay-marriage-ad

(and take a look at some of the other parodies here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0pPEAdDn64 )

Dear KMB,

I'll also try to keep it simple.

I did not call you an "A - hole."
I don't know you that well.
I merely took a bumper sticker -
that said, "Jesus Loves You.
(everyone else thinks you're an asshole)."
It was a response to your posts of "righteous indignation,"
against same-sex couples.
It was meant to be funny, not insulting.
And I then went on to explain - the changing alternative
lifestyles of our society. Where in the future - we won't
even have to have discussions like this one, because
lifestyle choices will be something that will be taken
for granted.

I'll end with another quote for you to think about:

"Toleration is the positive and cordial effort to
understand another's beliefs, practices and habits..."

Toleration is the key, not condemnation.

Cheers.

Foxy,
I'll take your silence on incest to mean that you concede my point.
Moving on,
"Toleration is the positive and cordial effort to
understand another's beliefs, practices and habits..."
You omitted the last part of Liebman's quote...
"without necessarily sharing or accepting them."
...which altogether changes things, don't you think?
I simply don't share the belief that homosexual "marriage" is normal, natural and acceptable,
just like you don't accept incest.
I also don't believe that the line I draw is as arbitrary as the line you draw.

Incest is illegal under Australian law. Homosexuality isn't.

While of course it's an arbitrary line, it's one that's enshrined in legislation.

The question is of course why perfectly legal homosexual partnerships are still not able to be accorded the status of marriages in Australian law.

And keith - Australian marriage law does not require its subjects to be able to procreate.

CJ Morgan,
So finally we have an admission that “of course it's an arbitrary line” between legalising homosexuality and legalising incest.
Clarity at last.
But then we lapse into more muddled thinking...
The legality of homosexuality is “enshrined in legislation.”
And then….
“Australian marriage law does not require its subjects to be able to procreate.”
But Australian marriage law does require its subjects to be a man and a woman!
Repeating for clarification…
The status of marriage as being between a man and a woman is “enshrined in legislation.”
Just what are you “progressives” thinking when you’re trying to make your points?

The impact of homosexual “marriage” (SSM):

Children will be indoctrinated from the earliest age that marriage between two men or women is exactly the same as marriage between a man and a woman.
Parents will be persecuted if they object to this indoctrination.
Children will be deliberately adopted into SSM’s and will never have the hope of the normal development provided by exposure to a mother and a father.
Adoption agencies which believe that this is against the best interests of the children in their care will be forced to close down.
Children will be artificially produced for deliberate placement into SSM’s and will never have the hope of the normal development provided by exposure to a mother and a father. Additionally these children will never get the chance to know who their biological father or mother is.
Ultimately anyone who argues that this may not be in the best interest of children will be criminalised for “hate” speech.
All of the above are already happening in the “free” world.
What sort of brave new world are you people fighting for?
When balancing the rights of children, who have no choice, against those of homosexual activists many will come to the decision that the children should come first.
This is expressing a reasonable concern.
It is not homophobia or religious fundamentalism.

For a secular-based argument against SSM:
http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/somerville.pdf
“Gays Against GayMarriage”:
http://nogaymarriage.wordpress.com/