Shokadelic - they want to be loved and admired and woe betide you if you do not do that! That would be discrimination so if you do not profess love and shout admiration you had better look out. There are remedies the gay community can take against you, and me come to that. Understand now?

JBowyer,
What a lot of nonsense, the act of marriage is not going to change how people treat each other. If they are not loved already by society then having partners the same will no change how others treat them. We have racist laws but that does not stop racism.

MARRIAGE IS A CONTRACT BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN TO CARE FOR EACH OTHER IN SICKNESS AND HEALTH; PRIMARILY IN RAISING THEIR FAMILY. It denies personal freedoms and accepts responsibility to the other. IT IS NOT merely A LOVE CEREMONY. The ceremony isself not the marriage, or the paper they sign. The paper is only a record before the law that they have made this promise to each other. Anyone two people can make such a promise, but it does not mean they are husband and wife.

I have a married friend who made a contract with his dying carpenter mate before he passed away to take care of his disabled wife. He and his wife now care for her, they are not married to her, he is her legal guardian.

There are other threads around the same subject as this one.

My posts in the thread 'Why are gays not prepared to compromise' are also relevant here. For economy here is the link to two replies (on one page),

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6959&page=26

Same-Sex marriage is a conscience issue and an
important change that's being proposed therefore
surely all sides of the debate have an equal right
to be heard instead of being demonised.

The following website gives an overview:

http://theconversation.com/why-Australia-is-so-far-behind-the-times-on-same-sex-marriage-42327

Foxy, an article titled "Why Australia is so far behind the times on same-sex marriage" hardly indicates "all sides of the debate have an equal right to be heard"

It presumes one side only is valid.

Note the pro-side always talks of "love" (as if "love" must by definition be monogamous and only one sexuality, whether straight or gay, but never bisexual, bigamous or incestous) and portrays the anti-side as exclusively "religious" (as if there's no non-religious basis for objection.)

Both presumptions are false.

The marriage act says nothing about "love" and people can "love" both sexes, multiple partners or biological relatives.

Yet no activism for bisexuals, multi-partner or incestous "marriage", which will still be prohibited.

A quite secular, scientific and logical opposition to homosexuality is easily deduced: natural purpose of genitalia = reproduction = obligatory heterosexuality.

I don't agree with that deduction, but it is *possible* to logically hold that perception and it has nothing to do with "God".

Dear Shocker,

Did you read the website?

It gives a general overview of Australia's
current position on same-sex
marriage. It is not an argument pro or anti
same-sex marriage. I thought it would add something
to the debate as a general comment.