Leigh, you are a freaking idiot so stfu. Seriously. I have no patience for people who want to dictate to others what they can and can't do in their own country. If you want to dictate to others what they can and can't do, GO TO CHINA. You have no right to live in a democratic country when you discriminate against a minority. You are the same type of person who would have opposed women's suffrage and a black people's rights decades ago. You may like to think it affects you, but a gay person getting Married does not affect you IN ANY WAY AT ALL. If you care about the "sanctity" of marriage, you should be looking at making divorce illegal/a criminal offense, because it is frivolous divorce that has degraded the value of marriage. It's sickening to think people like you want to impose your beliefs on others. If you or any others opposed to gay marriage have any dignity or respect for others, you will cease your ignorance and prejudice and desire to enforce your beliefs on others. (I take this back if you already support this, but it sounds like you don't and that is a shame.)

If the homophobic and otherwise bigoted opinions of correspondents like Boaz and Leigh represented anything like 'normality', I think I would be forced into abnormality in order to retain my sanity and self-respect.

Fortunately, however, I'm pretty sure that ideas like theirs occupy the loopy far right of public opinion, so I can continue my current lifestyle with equanimity and tolerance of those like them who are threatened by human difference.

I found those articles very interesting, Snout, thank you.
But I doubt that homophobes read them. As I said, I believe that homophobia and factophobia are somehow connected; unless it’s about facts that support their existing beliefs.

It is true, Steel, that giving homosexual people the same rights, e.g. marriage affects no one.
But I suppose if others such as Leigh and Boaz are content with their own opinion, then there’s no amount of verbal abuse that is going to change their mind.

I can only hope that one day soon, good education in schools and workplaces will prevent homophobia.

Leigh, the argument: ‘homosexuality is unnatural’ is not a strong one after all that has been said about naturalness.

If homosexuality occurs in nature, then it is a natural thing.
There are homosexual animals, too. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6066606.stm

Even IF homosexuality was unnatural, may I repeat that people are the most unnatural species on earth? You certainly have to agree that many things people do are ‘unnatural’- all of which homophobes don’t seem to worry about.

If the homophobes would come up with a reasonable argument that a) people act naturally all day long and b)homosexuality is unnatural and does not occur in nature, then feel free to present those facts. Otherwise, using the ‘homosexuality is unnatural’ argument is useless and ignorant.

I laughed after reading one of Snout's links- when Leigh accused Holyshadow of being homosexual.

It seems, holyshadow, that it is much more likely that homophobes (and not non-homophobes) have secret homosexual desires (and don’t know what to do about it).
The ones that protest the loudest…. (Oh, funny!)

Perhaps homosexual people should try to organise a homomonument which can be a place to meet, to spread information, to give support. There’s one in Amsterdam and tourists love it.

A homomonument such as this one will remind people constantly that homosexual people need consideration and have rights.
http://www.pinkpoint.org/ (fun to browse here and look for the Delft gay souvenirs- cute!)
http://members.chello.nl/mennevellinga/homomonument.html

The Australian also recently carried an interesting article on research showing that homosexuality is common in the animal kingdom:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20775612-28737,00.html

Those who think homosexuality is not “natural” perhaps need to think about how they define “natural”.

It’s a great an offence to the dignity and equality due to all Australians that the government refuses to accord gay relationships the same legal protections and recognition as straight ones. Of course the government should recognise Gay marriage.

The churches, however, should be free to make up their own minds on which unions they choose to bless. I think they ought to marry gays, and I’d support gay marriage in my own church. Similarly, I also think Churches ought to marry divorcees, while recognising their right in conscience to refuse to do so.

The churches have the right to speak for themselves, they don’t necessarily speak for God. The God of love, compassion and radical inclusiveness loves his gay children with exactly the same gracious intensity that he loves the rest of us, and my guess is He’s heartily sick of his so-called representatives in the religions hierarchy debarring gays for being as He made them. Christians are supposed to be on the side of the marginalised, despised and disposed. In this debate too many of us are the marginalisers, despisers and dispossessors. It makes me ashamed, and God knows how it makes gay Christians feel.

No worries, Celivia.

Incidentally, although although Herek is writing specifically about homophobia, the approach he outlines (experiential functions and symbolic functions) is a very useful way of understanding a whole range of prejudices including racism and religious and ethnic bigotry.

I reckon he has hit on something very important here, so I'm going to post the link again in case anyone missed it!

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/prej_func.html

Rhian, the issue of church attitudes raises a mixed bag of issues.
I agree churches should be able to operate internally to follow their beliefs (subject to the constraint that only ones being impacted are consenting adults).

I don't believe that the churches should get special breaks in other areas - rates, taxes etc, use of government funds to promote their views to the public (education funding being used to fund bible teaching, family planning councelling which does not include all legal options etc).

At the moment many seem to have it both ways, sponging off rate and taxpayers but insist on autonomy when it suits.

I also think that the use of threats needs to stop - a stance against gays backed up with threats of eternal torment is a nasty double up.

There are some issues around religious freedom which we have to come to grips with yet and which touch on issues like gay marriage.

I'm still pondering how to get a debate going on that topic without it becoming yet another bash the church/bash the godless battle.

R0bert