Can't you at least pick another word instead of pinching what belongs to man and woman.
If you want to go wooly woofin so be it, but don't bring normal people into it, by trying to take what we believe in.
Have a good think and maybe you can come up with something that is not offensive.
Your lot have destroyed story books, how low do you want to go.

Cornflower: << A person who voices an alternative opinion is by your reckoning a homophobe? >>

It's the content of the opinion that denotes homophobia. In your case, you seem to be in a bit of a lather about the possibility of homosexuals having the same rights to marry as everybody else. Indeed, you're arguing strenuously that they shouldn't - so I'd surmise that there's a fair probability that you're a homophobe.

What are you so afraid of?

Same-sex marriage is legal in quite a few countries. In The Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Spain, Norway, and Sweden "the legal status of same-sex marriages [is] exactly the same as that of opposite-sex marriages", and those societies don't seem to have fallen apart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

What exactly is your objection to gays having the same rights as everybody else?

I was going to stay out of this discussion until I read this:

"That homosexual pairings are not covered by the Marriage Act
is simply because the State chose to regulate, support and
exploit the common natural couplings that work to the
advantage of the community."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3191#75639

Would that it had. When the Howard government, with the shameful support of the opposition, changed the definition in the Marriage Act the advantage of the community was furthest from their minds. This measure was about the advantage of the Coalition in outer-suburban marginal seats with concentrations of evangelical christians.

If the advantage of the community were the government's main concern, it would have legislated to allow same-sex marriages ages ago. As this 2003 article from Time Magazine states:

"Conservatives have long rightly argued for the vital
importance of the institution of marriage for fostering
responsibility, commitment and the domestication of unruly
men."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,460232,00.html

Here on OLO, Andrew Norton wrote last year that:

"The biggest challenge to marriage over the last few decades
has been casual sex and cohabitation, since their
legitimisation took away one of the strongest reasons to
walk down the aisle at a relatively young age. As Jon
Rauch has pointed out, opposing gay marriage actually
strengthens this challenge to marriage, since unless
conservatives also support enforced celibacy they are
conceding that casual sex and cohabitation are acceptable."

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6907

As several people have pointed out above, in response to the case for marriage equality, its opponents are capable of producing only misrepresentations and personal expressions of distaste. If any of them truly have the interests of the community at heart, if any of them truly value love, monogamy and supportive human relationships, then they would be arguing _for_ same-sex marriage rather than spewing personal indignation and lies.

If God didn't make Adam and Steve - Who did?

Perhaps the ‘gay and lesbian’ parade and the media had a lot to do with it. Before this was on air they at least kept it in the closet.

Sorry, but it’s simply not natural for two of the same sex to mate and, the very nature of ‘mating’ is to produce ‘off-spring’.

Now once they achieve this, naturally, then call me and I will reconsider my position.

Marriage and homosexuality were around long before formalised religion. Marriage was established for social harmony and cohesion, primarly for the protection of offspring and to reduce genetic mutated similarities. Homosexuality has been socially outlawed in every society that has good secure foundations to raise children. It is a state institution and though organised by religion in the recent past due to the role of religion in the State. It has nothing to do with religious control, it has to do with good social order.

The rise of same sex paring today indicates a social delima of gender identity in todays society, and will lead to the deterioration of that society.

Hi Philo,
you are not by any chance a fundamentalist or religious hardliner?

Why do you want to ban or dictate, who is allowed or has the right to marry and who not? The earth is not a disc. We have moved on since.

If you are looking at the course of history, most wars were started under religious influence. You therefore will understand, as a argumentum e contrario, that life without those influences would be a much more peaceful one.

Let gay people have a peaceful life, they haven't done anything wrong. Give them a chance, without the old antiquated mindset.
They deserve the same respect then other people as well.