Bazz you can blame channel ten for that as if I'm correct it was they who started to broadcast the gay MG in Sydney. Before then they kept to themselves.

So here we are a few decades later and not only are they publicly proud to be queers, they also want what normal people have and they won't give in until they get their way.

Of cause the problem is simply allowing them to be recognized as married won't be the end of it.

I say we should take a stand and resect our forefathers who fought and paid the ultimate sacrifice for us and simply say, find somewhere else to get married as there are plenty of choices.

During the past few decades we have seen many of our rights eroded and our limp wristed governments have paid too much attention to the squeaky wheel brigade.

Marriage is what it is so get over it because so long as there is man on man there will never be equality in marriage.

While I don't respect queers any less than normal people, when it comes to marriage, just find another word. Problem solved but that's just too easy and, given most if them are drama queens, the easy option is just not colorful enough.

o sung wu,

The Slippery Slope fallacy was the assumption that marrying animals would be next. A vegetarian could similarly argue, "Humans eating animal flesh? What's next? Eating babies?"

There's no reason to believe that marrying animals will be next. It would be a waste of taxpayer dollars given that it would provide no practical or legal benefit to either party, and an animal can't form a contract with a human or provide consent. And as you point out, zoophilia is listed on the DSM-V as a 'deviant sexual behaviour'.

Bazz,

I liked your post. It found it refreshingly honest.

No feigned concerns about children; no disingenuous ponderings about what the government is doing in the "marriage business" anyway; no red herrings regarding the allegedly small percentage of homosexuals who actually care about the issue.

Just straight up ignorance and bigotry from a bloke who can't stand poofs.

rehctub,

No-one owns words and the meaning of the word "marriage" has evolved a lot over time, so it is you who needs to get over it. I could equally argue that you need to find another word. Did you receive your wife in an exchange for oxen? Did you receive your wife in an agreement to form an alliance? Did you mary her to ensure the paternity of your children?

Then find another word, because "marriage" was taken.

AJ Phillips, hasn't marriage been a slippery slope since Adam and Eve?

You know how it went, first marriage was with your clone, then incestually with your brothers, sisters, etc. and then before you know it J. Howard Marshall marries Anna Nicole Smith.

If two or more people of varied sexes want to have sex with each other it is none of my business as long as everybody involved is a freely consenting adult.

If two consenting adult humans of the same or opposite sexes want to commit to each other in legal wedlock I wish them happiness.

However, I object to a human forcing sex on either another human or a non-human. If you want to have sex with a sheep be gentle and engage in adequate foreplay.

Ooaahhh, seems I touched a sore point with AJ Philips,

I think UNCLEAN UNCLEAN does indeed call a spade a bloody shovel !

Toni Lavis,

Good joke that one.

Strangely enough the vowel shift in NZ English is fairly recent.
The Kiwis that I soldiered with in the 1950s spoke much the same as the Australian troops and it was only the uniform that differentiated us, apart from the obvious difference of our Maori mates.