platt,Is ignorant of the previous debate and its real social consequences. He wants a law to enforce his radical socialist view on the conscience and traditional values of society.

//The whole Social Justice movement of which marriage equality and LGBTIQ rights are a part is nothing more than a Christian heresy//

heresy: 1. opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, especially of a church or religious system.
2. the maintaining of such an opinion or doctrine.
3. Roman Catholic Church. the willful and persistent rejection of any article of faith by a baptized member of the church.

Social justice is not heretical within the Roman Catholic church. Popes Pius XI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have issued encyclicals advocating social justice. I haven't looked at Pope Francis' new encyclical but I suspect it probably supports it as well. Social justice is a fundamental cornerstone of contemporary Catholic doctrine.

I wouldn't exactly describe the Roman Catholic church as a heretical sect of Christianity. If anything, it is the Christian churches which reject Catholic teachings on social justice that are guilty of heresy.

//Social Justice is not too distant in outlook from Catharism when you really look at it closely.//

From wikipedia:

// The idea of two Gods or principles, one being good and the other evil, was central to Cathar beliefs. The good God was the God of the New Testament and the creator of the spiritual realm, as opposed to the evil God, whom many Cathars and, particularly, their persecutors identified as Satan, creator of the physical world of the Old Testament. All visible matter, including the human body, was created by this evil god; it was therefore tainted with sin. This was the antithesis to the monotheistic Catholic Church, whose fundamental principle was that there was only one God who created all things visible and invisible. Cathars thought human spirits were the genderless spirits of angels trapped within the physical creation of the evil god, cursed to be reincarnated until the Cathar faithful achieved salvation through a ritual called the consolamentum.//

Yeah, I can really see the resemblance between social justice and all that supernatural mumbo-jumbo (sarcasm).

//He wants a law to enforce his radical socialist view on the conscience and traditional values of society.//

What evidence do you have to support your view that platt is a 'radical socialist'?

...Same-sex marriage will give homosexuals the opportunity to make marital commitments. Why not give them the opportunity?

David, the opportunity is not the real issue here, it's the equality they seek and, so long as a same sex couple CAN NEVER have children together, naturally, then their union can never be the same as a normal couple.

However, while I'm against gay marriage myself, if they want to marry, as I've said time and time again, just add to the act to allow for same sex couples, while retaining the words 'between a man and a woman'. I just don't get why SSC don't get this, but of cause it's equality they seek and that's one quest where they will never achieve their goal, but that won't stop them from trying.

Being allowed the right to marry is only the first step, as acceptance is a whole different ball game and this is why I say "are we opening a can of worms" if we allow them to change the act to suit their extremely small minority because although they are a minority group they shaw will make a lot of noise if and when they get their way.

//so long as a same sex couple CAN NEVER have children together, naturally, then their union can never be the same as a normal couple.//

I take it your definition of a 'normal couple' is one involving heterosexuals that can have children together naturally. Where does this leave all the heterosexual couples who CAN NEVER have children together naturally? Do we have add a special clause to the marriage act for them as well? All these added clauses are certainly going to keep the lawyers happy, but do we really need to feed the sharks when one small change to the marriage act would achieve the same ends?

"...It's the equality they seek and, so long as a same sex couple CAN NEVER have children together, naturally, then their union can never be the same as a normal couple."

Whilst I am gay, and have no intention of seeking to be married [though I am open to future possibilities], I promise you rehctub that I would NEVER regard any marriage of mine to be as, or in, common as that of Geoffrey Edelston and Gabi Grecko's.

By the way, I have no ill will towards their child and wish it the best despite its circumstances.