Dear Banjo,

I believe that those homosexual people, who want to formally 'marry', are purposing to have their 'family' legally recognised and protected.
If to choose a word different from 'marriage', this would only emphasize discrimination before the law. Furthermore, if to choose a word different from marriage, this could also suggest that not a 'family' but something else is being established. It seems to me that this could be not only deepening discrimination and segregation but directly offending homosexual persons

Dear Philo,

Thank you for your message.
As you can see, I am arguing this matter on the ground of such a fundamental human right as equality of all persons before the law regardless of their morality, sexuality, religion, etc. - regardless of anything.
It is universally accepted that homosexuality is not a perversion or mental pathology. USA classification of mental illnesses DSM IV excludes 'homosexuality' from mental illnesses. So does the International classification. No scientific explanation for homosexuality has been produced so far. Religious views are unlikely worthy to consider in the course of this discussion.
Yes, homosexual persons are in minority and always will be. Nevertheless, don't we have universally agreed that no minorities must be in any ways discriminated? The state and the law must provide for any minority the same conditions as they provide for majority of people.

Says who Andreas Berg?

...At last a window into the delusional world of a homosexual suffering from the pangs of a "persecution complex":

...A glimpse at the sick, sad and delusional gathering at the Gay Mari-Grass in the city of Sydney, would attest to the potential social horror the mass of Australia awaits in ignorance, from the homosexual epicenter of oxford street, Sydney.

...For Berg to glibly snide that Australian society should willingly "roll over" and accept uncontested, every individual homosexuals demand for a free-for-all romp through the heritage values of Australian society as a concession to human rights, simply because he believes, erroneously, the individual has personal rights equal to, or greater than the good of the broader society, attests to his delusion!

The first myth:
...We may stretch the delusion to test his "Individual euchre" theory, by an imaginary extension of the rights of the individual to trump the good of the greater society with a theoritical trip down the expressway driving a Maserati at speeds quite within its capabilities of 250klm per hour within a speed restricted area of 100klm's per hour: The justification (using this logic) is the individuals right to drive his Maserati within the speed range deemed safe for the vehicle!

..."Bunkum". "The welfare of society should always trump the rights of the individual to cause it harm":

The second myth:
All are equal before the law. Great theory but so full of holes as to be laughable!

The third myth:
The law relating to marriage should be equal to all sexual orientations of society (including homosexuals). This is the "Swiss Cheese" myth.

...The law currently stands implicating the rights of marriage towards male and female only. (As much as I love my dog, I should NOT, for the welfare of society, be permitted to marry my dog): The logical outcome to society by extension of change, outside the currently accepted norm for marriage partners, the precedence "same sex marriage" will contribute, is greater risk of decay and damage to socially acceptable norms of behavior the new "logic" attached to the change will bring

The treatment of minorities will always be more about rhetoric rather than actualities.

In an ideal world universal equality may apply but the world is far from ideal.

Human rights are dictated by the majority or those in power for obvious reasons as are most things that affect our lives. It does not matter where you live on this planet this is a fact.

I would have thought the pursuit of happiness would be a greater desire rather than seeking official sanction of that happiness.

Take it easy.

SD

Andreas,
If the government legally recognised homosexual unions as 'M'and 'F' there would be, and could be, no discrimination, under law.

It simply recognises that there are 3 different types of personal legal unions.

Marriage would still be the term for a legal hetrosexual union. You just need suitable terms for the other two.

I have never ever suggested that the individual's rights should be prioritized over the rights of society. Neither have I suggested that the rights of society should always prevail over the rights of the individual.
There are areas of human life where the rights of the individual must have priority (they called human rights). There are areas of human life where the rights of society must have priority over those of the individual. Intelligent balance between these priorities is a strong indicator of how society is developed.
Equality before the law (regarding marriage too) is universally accepted as fundamental human right, which must have priority over the rights of society.
It is also worthy to notice that every individual should have equal rights. Precisely because if this, these rights cannot be endless and unlimited. No particular right of any individual must threaten or damage any other rights of any other individuals.
However, I cannot see how widening of the legal status of 'marriage' in order to include here the same sex union could threaten or damage any other rights of any members of society?
Maybe, the opponents of this view could provide some practical examples of potential damage they are worrying about?