<<The Labour Party deciding there is no need for a conscience vote about gay marriage are quite right in suggesting that all their members would naturally choose to follow the party line, because to deny gay people the right to marry is a form of discrimination.>>

Suse, the above encapsulates what this whole thread is about. The fact that support for gay marriage is Labor Party policy. I think some have a unrealistic and distorted view of what the roll and function of an elected representative is. I have sat on a few candidate interview panels and one question "Do you have any major problems with any of the parties polices?" A prospective candidate could say "I am not entirely happy with the parties policy on gay marriage." The follow up questions would be to find out if that person could still vote in support of that policy, if they could not, then there would be serious doubts about their candidacy asperations. They are not asked to agree with policy 100%, but do they feel they can support policy when necessary. Party policy once determined is binding on all elected representatives of the party.
For every one elected there is a team of members and supporters behind that person that worked hard to get them elected alone with the mass of voters who supported them. Getting elected does not make one a free agent to do and please as they wish Once elected a representative has a very wide set of obligations. If one wants to act as a free agent then run as an independent or join a party that has little in the way of policy.

So we see The Labor Party forces its members against conscience to follow Party line otherwise they are not a representative. I always thought Labor supported a dictatorial leadership. Wars have been fought to give persons the right to individual freedom, obviously Paul believes Government is best served by a Dictator.

There are homosexuals and there are gays.
I wonder how many people who support same sex marriage have ever been to a Gay bar or worked with homosexuals? From their writings I sense a level of pity in the attitudes of so called Christian and liberal supporters, as if allowing people of the same gender to marry will stop them abusing crystal meth and gang banging in public toilets, as if the way they behave is the result of discrimination and not just "their way". Homosexuals have always been free to form monogamous relationships as long as they simulated a normal relationship, what we see now is the never ending Bohemian freakshow that is the Gay subculture asserting itself and demanding that their ever fluid definition of gender and human relations be accepted as the norm.
A social norm is a benchmark,if two people of the same gender want to have a wedding and live together it's fine by me as it would be with most people but the lunatics, the transgenders and the addled left wing freaks are dominating the discussion. I don't see any progress being made as long as the public public relations campaign being dominated by crazy communists and people with obvious mental problems demanding that people be fired from their jobs or bashed because they don't accept every disgusting,idiosyncratic tic of the Gay milieu.

Would not the changing of the legal definition of marriage be an act of discrimination against all those people who support the current definition of their marital status?

If homosexuals (happy and carefree or not) want a term to describe their union, then I'm sure that they can invent one; they don't have to take and change the meaning of 'marriage'.

Dear Suse,

<<Forcing women wanting abortions to continue with unwanted pregnancies or labour would fall under that category too of course?>>

Yes (but why only women?), forcing people to do anything against their will is VIOLENCE. This is the category and I believe that we agree that it is wrong.

<<because to deny gay people the right to marry is a form of discrimination.>>

It is, but of a different category, because in this case no violence is involved.

Here simply, the government refuses to supply a particular service (i.e. marriage registration) to certain people. It does not, to the best of my knowledge, point a gun and threaten homosexuals with jail if they marry.

I am not a fan of rights. As I wrote several times in this forum, better don't rob our freedom away in the first place, then you don't need to return us back the remaining small change as "rights".

People should have the freedom to marry two goats, a washing machine and a flag, if that's what they want. It's none of the government's business.

---

Dear David,

<<Jokes based on stereotypes may be funny to those who share those stereotypes>>

I wonder who still shares it nowadays - not me or anyone I know. I believe that this particular stereotype is long dead and buried, allowing everyone to have a good laugh, including the Jew who told me this joke.

Paul,

The greens are just as guilty of bigotry and racism, using a tenuous connection with Israel to boycott local Jewish businessmen with a half baked motive of palestinian support.