A mighty spray of hatred, but where was the response to what I said?

I ask you again, HermanYutic: why would legal gay marriage mean we must accept polygamy, when our laws routinely draw distinctions between similar types of proposal? And if your rationale is accurate, why can't Satanists legally kill unbaptised children, just as you can wear a cross in public?
Also, I have seen no evidence of the obscenities you describe. Can you back those claims up with a link to a valid source?

Sancho,

Links to the obscenities I described -

Criminal retribution by homosexuals against those who voted for Proposition 8 in California:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/upload/bg_2328-3.pdf

Masturbating from the balconies, public oral and anal sex at the appropriately named Up Your Alley Fair:
http://www.zombietime.com/up_your_alley_2008/part_1_full/

Public oral sex at the Folsom St Fair:
http://zombietime.com/folsom_sf_2007_part_1/

Demands to allow anonymous sex in public places because it's part of the "homosexual culture":
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-9326.html

How is commentary on observable behaviour “a mighty spray of hatred”?

Get help. Fast.

HermanYutic, I requested links to "valid" sources for a reason.

What you have provided instead are links to a far-Right propaganda site, a pro-Christian, pro-Republican image site, and, respectably, a link to a gay newspaper promoting a minority view. They are not valid.

I'm quite happy to discuss the ways you have been misled and hope to mislead others in this regard, but first I'd like you to address the questions you're conspicuously avoiding.

You have stated that if Australia legalises gay marriage, it must also legalise polygamy.

I have pointed out that we have many laws which permit socially accepted activities while restricting similar activities which are not considered acceptable.

For the third time, I ask you why marriage laws are an exception to this established norm. And, for the third time, I ask you to explain how your line of reasoning doesn't lead inevitably to the conclusion that any behaviour is acceptable if it has the permission of a religion or cult.

These aren't hard questions, and I'm basing them entirely on your own statements.

I believe, HermanYutic, that your argument is inconsistent, illogical, and based on prejudice rather than fact. I also believe that you realise it, which is why you refuse to answer my simple questions.

Prove me wrong by explaining your reasoning and I'll be happy to address the other issues you have raised.

From the first of Herman's links "Furthermore, although some same-sex marriageactivists have expressed disagreement with certain types of conduct described in this paper, few activists would disavow the ideology underlying much of the outrage surrounding Prop 8 and other efforts to defend marriage"

- lets put that into a different context and see how it looks "Furthermore, although some christain fundamentalists have expressed disagreement with certain types of conduct described in this paper, few fundamentalists would disavow the ideology underlying much of the outrage surrounding access to abortion and other efforts to defend womens control over their own bodies"

Link 2 a fetish fair (that link won't be appearing on my favourites list). Hetro marriages should be banned because of what happens at swingers parties, maybe not.

Link 3 - another fetish fair and again as relevant to the issue of gay marriage as extreme's of hetro behaviour.

Link 4 - "A small minority of gay men use parks or open spaces, known as cruising grounds, or public toilets, known as cottages, to look for sex." and "Some heterosexuals now ape that with dogging, a similar practice whereby single men and couples gather in a public place such as a car park either to watch or participate." Again I don't see the relevance to the issue of gay marriage.

R0bert

Stop inventing stuff, HermanYutic.

>>You propose altering the marriage laws to include one particular aberrant sexual behaviour while excluding other aberrant sexual behaviours.<<

I simply pointed out the introduction of children, animals and Austin Powerless' car into the discussion was entirely irrelevant to the issue of gay marriage.

You subscribe to the view that if society decides that homosexual couples should be allowed to marry, the same "right" should be applied to children , animals and Austin Powerless' car.

You provide no logical justification for this, which can only mean that you consider paedophilia, bestiality and sex between man and machine as having an equal status in the community.

It may have escaped your notice that society frowns on all three of these activities, to the point of making two of them illegal.

Sadly for Austin Powerless' car, it has to fend for itself.

You make the profoundly arrogant assumption, as Boaz/Polycarp did before you, that the performance of anything your religion disagrees indicates an absence - a vacuum, even - of moral consciousness. That leads, we are told, to a process of "making it up as you go".

This is the point at which you introduce all the examples possible of extreme aberrant behaviours, as "proof" that outside your right little, tight little group of moral holy rollers, the world is rife with sin.

So the world is divided for you neatly into people-like-you and people-not-like-you.

Fortunately it is not yet mandatory for us all to become people-like-you.