On the face of it, a referendum sounds like a good idea. Let’s get some direct democracy going, let the people decide, that would be fair, right? Wrong.

With respect, it’s very easy for someone who already has equality to argue that someone else’s equality should be put to a referendum. Voting rights for women – was that put to a referendum? Nope. Equal pay for women? Not on your life. Sure, we voted overwhelmingly to grant full citizenship to indigenous Australians in 1967, but it’s pretty shameful that a referendum was required in the first place.

Equality belongs to human beings because they are human, not because the majority says they can have it. Pause a while over the first article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and
rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience
and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

We’re born with equal rights. You didn’t have to beg your fellow citizens for equality, so I’ll need some convincing that I should.

Here’s a delightfully whimsical Irish take on the same question:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ULdaSrYGLQ

Foxy,
Yes lets have a refurrendum so one section of the community can impose its opinion on the other by law.

You said, "We're all entitled to our opinions, but we're not entitled to impose them on other people. With a Referendum - at least everyone will get to have a say."

Gays sexual behaviour will never be marriage in any technical sense of the term even if they call it marriage. Their agenda has a more sinister motive and that is to inforce the community to accept their sexual behaviour as the norm, and be able to prosecute those who object to such behaviour. They hope to turn the tables on those who agree it is a disgusting sexual perversion

The real position of gays is that if they can normalise their relationship in law as normal social behaviour then any opinion opposing that will be considered defamatory and illegal and be able to prosicute at law such expressions as defamatory.

However they fail to recognise normal biological design and human function. The majority of persons who are infertile through no choice of their own does not deny them the desire to become parents. Most persons entering marriage do so with an intent to raise a family; even persons in defacto relationships when intending children desire marriage to give their children security and family identity.

Just to clarify, Philo:

Marriage is only marriage if entered into by heterosexuals for the purpose of reproduction, except if they can't reproduce but want to, which is okay, despite being a contradiction. Oh, and it's still marriage between heterosexuals who can reproduce but don't want to, and also those who can't reproduce and also don't want to, even though that's the complete opposite of the original principle.

So, "marriage" is meaningless and can be defined on the spot by anyone hoping to win an argument. Brilliant!

Look out, Christians - Philo's a secret agent for the gay marriage movement!

Now, show us where "marriage" is being used as a biological term.

I'd like to Thank everyone for their contributions
to this discussion. It's been an interesting one and
an emotional one at times. The topic appears to create
controversy - and many points of view.
However I find that I've nothing
more to add to the topic - and I don't see the point
in being repetitive.

This is an issue that we as a society will
eventually have to decide on. It's not a question
of a "minority" imposing their views on us all.
I think it's a question of what the majority sees
as being fair and eqitable. And, in a democracy -
its the way the majority votes that decides things.
You may not have voted for the current government,
for example, but the rest of the country did.
The same will hopefully apply to same-sex marriage.
It's should be up to the country to decide what kind
of society they want to live in.

Anyway, All The Best to you all.
See you on another thread.