Rhrosty,
I note you have demonstrated an uneducated narrow view of others who disagree with you, showing an emotive argument. All the examples you have chosen to claim rights are spurious as none is denied relationships covered in legislation and all with the exception of sodomy are physical disabilities. Homosexuality is not a physical disability, it is a choice. If is is as the other examples you posted there are procedures to correct such a disability.

All as Runner has said of lesbians is true. Prove they are born genetically always to always prefer a sexual relationship with another woman, and that without a substitute penis. As the English High Diver said in his coming out, "I am currently in a relationship with another man, but does not mean I might later have a relationship with a girl." He is leaving his options open.

Gay men in a heterosexual relationship can produce children so the bond with another man is not marriage but merely emotional, and if sex is involved is an act of uncleanness. It is people like yourself that wants to silence scientific and natural evolutionary reality; and follow like uneducated sheep homosexual lobbyists.

I have just been having a look at the High Court judgement as posted on AUSTLII, and it is in principle, largely as foreshadowed by myself and others.

I was however pleasantly surprised to see that it does point the way forward, which perhaps though is a subject best considered in another thread, except to note with pleasure that it does put the likes of *Runner* and *Josephus* back in their box, as it should.

In saying that, I would quote as follows:

" ...

35. The social institution of marriage differs from country to country. It is not now possible (if it ever was) to confine attention to jurisdictions whose law of marriage provides only for unions between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. Marriage law is and must be recognised now to be more complex. Some jurisdictions outside Australia permit polygamy. Some jurisdictions outside Australia, in a variety of constitutional settings, now permit marriage between same sex couples.

36. These facts cannot be ignored or hidden. It is not now possible (if it ever was) to decide what the juristic concept of marriage includes by confining attention to the marriage law of only those countries which provide for forms of marriage which accord with a preconceived notion of what marriage "should" be. More particularly, the nineteenth century use of terms of approval, like "marriages throughout Christendom"[47] or marriages according to the law of "Christian states"[48], or terms of disapproval, like "marriages among infidel nations"[49], served only to obscure circularity of reasoning. Each was a term which sought to mask the adoption of a premise which begged the question of what "marriage" means. The marriage law of many nations has always encompassed (and now encompasses) relations other than marriage as understood in Hyde v Hyde. ... "

Dream on keep dreaming as the High Court has not defined marriage any different than what it defined in Australian law.

The Christian, Jewish and Muslim communities will never recognize homosexuality as equal to marriage. The homosexual lobby would love to control by laws the right to disagree that such is not equal to a marriage.

I think that it is quite plain to everyone that the likes of you neither have the intellectual capacity nor the ability to comprehend what has been said.

You see, I think that your kind are quite willing to try and cobble together any barely coherent bunch of arguments to try and advance your cause, but as noted by the High Court, it is but a mask to promote your own belief of what "marriage" means.

Now, on that point, I for one do not care what you believe and in fact, support your right to hold a belief (irrespective of how delusional it may be)and to practice your religion however, there are limits.

You are not to inflict your muddle headed views on others, especially children, except those adults who choose to subscribe to your beliefs.

And in that regard, what are you people other than filthy pedophiles and those who cover up for them, baby stealers, child abusers and that's just the tip of the ice berg.

..

And of course, within the realm of religious folk, there are those who are accepting of all Souls irrespective of their sexual preferences so to claim that all Christians, Jews and Muslims are opposed to homosexuality just shows the depth of your ignorance and what a pathetic and demented individual you really are.

Your kind are responsible for the persecution of the vulnerable and if you think that you are going to get away with it as you have in the past then I assure you, you have another thing coming, so I suggest you desist, keep your beliefs to your dead and dieing churches and adopt a platonic love and tolerance for those who are other, as if not, you may care to consider praying that my kind do not catch you in the act.

Whilst in the past you have run off sniveling that you are being bullied, the reality is that you only have been attacked (and will be again) if you yourself choose to persecute the vulnerable, and there is a distinct difference.

DreamOn,
Now your real character is showing.
You show you cannot express intelligent debate only abuse. Over 60% of the Australian population agree with the view that marriage is a mutual lifelong consent only between a man and a woman. All other configurations of sexual relationships is not marriage as the law defines.
It is time the Government took homosexual unions to a vote by the people to silence these lobbyists. We do not want our children brainwashed with the idea that homosexuality is normal.

Dear Josephus,

I am sure that there will be a Referendum on
same-sex marriage sometime in the future.
It's inevitable.
However you may be surprised to learn that
according to recent polls approx. 62 percent
of Australians do support same-sex marriage.

As I've written in the past, if we assume
that there is only one "right" marriage form,
then naturally any change will be interpreted as
heralding the doom of the whole institution.
It is important to recognise, therefore, that
there is an immense range in marriage, family,
and kinship patterns, that each of these patterns
may be, at least in their own context, perfectly
viable, and above all, that marriage and the family,
like any other social institutions do inevitably
change through time in our society, as in all
others.

Our personal beliefs will not stop these
changes from taking place.