That's a remarkably small-minded couple of comments there keith - even for you.

Thank you CJ

Typical barrage of comments.

Basically, I support equal rights for homosexuals, but I don't support the naming of it as marriage.

For the simple fact, that it's just a name and it's one that the Christian lobby take seriously.

If they're going to get all worked up about it, let them have their pacifier. Provided there are legitimate equal rights within the legislation, I think it's selfish to force the naming to be equal. In making absolutely no compromise, certain extreme sections of the gay-rights lobby shoot the more pragmatic advocates in the foot by insisting on gay-marriage-or-nothing. Civil unions seems like an admirably pragmatic way forward, provided they're equal in all but name.

Oh, and Trav - like hell they haven't answered your question.
Fact is, it's been pointed out that everywhere where civil unions are banned, polygamy is allowed, and places where polygamy is permitted, civil unions are banned. It's the best possible answer to a dumb question.

You're spoiling for a fight and we all know it. There's no problem with that, but there's no basis for your extrapolations.

"Slippery slope" arguments tend to be pretty weak by nature.

As far as slippery slopes go, I could just as easily say that if we allow people to eat pigeons, they'll wind up eating dogs and babies too.

Come on Woulfe, acceptance of what someone writes is determined by the credibility of their previous writings and claims, Rodney Croome fails on all counts. He is a trouble maker, not a progressive of homosexual acceptance. Being a couple has nothing to do with being married in the eyes of a god who supposedly abhors homosexual contact. The relevant act in Tasmania describes it as equal to civil unions in many other jurisdictions, providing legality.

What's being demanded is for religion to give up it's non acceptance of homosexuals within the tenets of it's belief. Even though I am completely anti religious, I still believe they have the right to determine who they decide should receive the sacraments of marriage. There is no provision within the sacraments to declare man and man/women and women, just man and wife. A completely discriminating and suppressive ceremony, not designed for equality at all. So why would a sensible person want to be involved in that, when they have perfectly legal avenues giving them as much rights as anyone else.

Of course there's only been 120 people take this action, how many homosexuals do you think would bother when they are perfectly happy as it is. How many do you think live in Tasmania with a population of less than 500000, certainly not 10% as Croome demands and probably less than 1%. Homosexuality is reasonably accepted in Tasmania considering it is also pretty conservative in many issues. People like Croome try to make it worse with their divisive agenda's.

Did you actually read the article, stormbay?

“A 2007 poll of faith-minded Americans aged 18-35 found 80 per cent felt Christian leaders are wrongly contemptuous of gays and lesbians. A poll of the same demographic, released last month, found 55 per cent supported same-sex marriage or civil unions. It’s reasonable to assume that such figures would be even higher in Australia.”

Being “completely anti religious” could explain how out of step your views are. In future, if you want to sally forth in support of this country’s Christians, I think you should do your homework first. The Australia Institute’s 2005 study “Mapping Homophobia” http://www.tai.org.au/documents/downloads/WP79.pdf found that among Australia’s three largest Christian denominations, Catholic, Anglican and Uniting Church, only 35% regard homosexuality as immoral. Should your claims about tenets of belief requiring “non acceptance of homosexuals” be correct, then a great majority of Australian Christians aren’t following the script. Religious-based opposition to equality for same-sex-attracted Australians is dissolving – I recommend you find a new ideological flag of convenience to sail your silliness under.

I think that if we believe in equality
for all - we should allow people to make
their own choices in their human relationships.

Finding the right partner is difficult enough
in the best of times. Finding one you want to
spend the rest of your life with - is next to
impossible. And having found that partner -
who is to tell us - you can't marry because
you've made the wrong choice? They've got to
meet the following criteria ...
(Because that's what our religion tells us?)

Laws are made for all people - not merely for
some. If marriage is to be a legal institution
between two people in this country - then it
should be available to all people. Not just
a select few.

Simple really.