Just bulldust, it was the twixt of glad eyes that happened when I first met my wife, a sweet military lass in mid WW2.

Met her again on leave when able, and married six months before the war ended.

In fact, there was a saying on leave during the war, when after dancing with pretty girl in the city on a crowded floor.

You had a good looker, but what was she like up close, mate?

Reckon good for a night, but not for a lifetime?

The same could have also been said about a casual dancing partner, by most females of the time.

My wife though fond of sport and fair play, was a very spiritual Christian and whether we both broke the code akin to the above Essay, I know my wife from experience would agree that because humanitarianism can never be perfect, certain friendhips though obviously not normal, should be left alone, as many human interest stories have proven

KMB. By your library store of negative media references to gay people, it would appear you have a fixation on gay people.

Your subjective comments would have some substance if they were balanced with the same negative media references towards hetrosexual people, which we can all bring attention to, but prefer to remain within the debate of the subject matter.

This article is about ideology, not equality. The author is well known for his hatred of all things outside his understanding. As others have pointed out, there are no barriers to becoming a couple with equal rights as others in society if you approach life from a sane situation, rather than an emotional and rabid one.

What right does anyone have to interfere with the set relationship sanctions of religious marriage. You don't have to adhere to it, it's not harmful and if it doesn't accept your approach to life, then that's their business. It mattered 50 years ago when there was only one form of sanctioned coupling, but not now, there are many legally accepted avenues one can take to ensure their relationship is recognised and sanctioned. No one questions relationships today or their status, only those with disruptive or fervent agenda's do.

Basically it's an emotional problem, filled with confusion, doubt and fear. You see it in all ideology and homosexuality is a developed ideology. Poor old Rodney needs to get a life and do something constructive in the community for once.

Basically it's an emotional problem, filled with confusion, doubt and fear. You see it in all ideology and homosexuality is a developed ideology. Poor old Rodney needs to get a life and do something constructive in the community for once.
Posted by stormbay, Wednesday, 15 April 2009 1:49:11 PM

I believe it's more a fear of "the other" combined with condemnation of all things beyond our ken, and using Religious dogma as an excuse to feel superior to everyone else.

I have been told by many people that I am not a "real" Christian because of my liberal views. So be it. But I am unable to condemn any "Creation" of a "Creator" because they think differently to me. Lord help me, I even allow those who disagree with me the right to their own opinion.

I would think that those who bemoan our "modern" society would consider that a loving, faithful relationship was preferable to the promiscuity that is seen as the hallmark of most gay relationships.

It is a truth that is blithely ignored by those who insist that "gay Marriage" is an oxymoron, but I personally know of many committed couples who have been together for decades. Not surprisingly, because the trials undergone in these relationships almost exactly mirror those in my own, faithful and monogamous hetersexual one, I can only assume that what these couples have is a true marriage, and as such I believe it should be recognized as such.

Whilst in most areas I consider myself to be conservative, I have known several gay singles and couples, and the words of one former diplomat put things in perspective for me.

"I did not choose to be gay, in fact it is not something I would wish on someone, as it is a hard life on the fringes of society."

They are still human and as such are owed the same respect and dignity that all other citizens are.

Whilst marriage was orignally engineered to create an environment for raising children, it has come to mean commitment, fidelity etc. Though many Aus couples choose to raise children outside marriage, they still have the option to get married at any time.

The only real objection to SSM is from religious fundementalists or bigots such as KMB.

However, given the large religiously bigotted portion of Aus society, I would suggest Rodney Coombe support the civil unions act, not because I feel it should stop there, but because it is one step towards full recognition.

This is a serious question for anyone who supports gay marriage. I am not being facetious at all, I just want a serious answer to this question.

If Gay marriage is allowed, then in the future what argument could you put forward against a proposal to allow people to have multiple wives or husbands?

That's a serious question, so I'd like to hear some serious answers please. Because it seems to me that gay marriage could quite easily start a slippery slope into an oblivion where there really is no such thing as marriage. For the last few centuries, or millenia, marriage has been one man and one woman. If we now alter the definition to include one man and one man or one woman and one woman, then why not allow one man to marry two women? Where does the buck stop?