AJ,
Because a person holds a historical view different to yours according to you they are "Bigoted".

My Reason: Because two persons of the same gender who choose to live together, they of that relationship cannot have children is of no business of the Government. Somewhere those two same gender persons have been previously registered by the union of a man and a woman as citizens. Government only need register citizens. Only the union of a man and a woman can produce citizens. It is that union that defines a marriage.

The issue is contemporary, Josephus, not historical.

<<Because a person holds a historical view different to yours according to you they are "Bigoted".>>

Nor does what I believe have anthing to do with it.

Thanks for stating your reason for objecting to marriage equality, as disjointed as it read. If I understand you correctly, you think that same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to get married because they can't produce a child together. But they can still have children, and indeed, many of them do. Marriage is a social construct, too, not a biological one.

Sorry, josephus, but your reasoning is still irrational.

Hi Josephus,

Don't tease him :)

Hi AJ,

An interesting phrase: " ..... two persons of the same gender who choose to live together ...." used to be called a "de facto" relationship, and people lived in it quite happily with no ill effects throughout their love for each other.

But now, poor homosexuals MUST get 'married', since suddenly a de facto relationship is so intolerable. So, while marriage is defined as between a male and a female human, they are heartlessly and brutally barred.

Gosh, what a pity. Oh well, you just have to get over these little things. Don't sweat the small stuff.

Joe

Joe,

How was Josephus teasing me? That was a weird thing to say. Both of you seem to be a little off today. Is something wrong?

<<But now, poor homosexuals MUST get 'married', since suddenly a de facto relationship is so intolerable.>>

Yes, I'm familiar with this line of reasoning, and it's stupid. Your mockery doesn't do your argument any favours, either.

Back in “the day”, gay people were just happy to not have their expressions of intimacy declared illegal. They were hardly going to start fighting for marriage equality. This is also not a reason to deny them the right to marry now.

Try again.

<<Oh well, you just have to get over these little things.>>

Given that marriage equality is inevitable (and people on both sides of the debate seem to agree there), I don't think it's me who has to get over anything. One thing I will never "get over", however, is bigotry.

Equality is never a “little thing”, either, by the way.

Hi AJ,

No worries: put it to a plebiscite and let the Australian people decide. End of kerfuffle.

Joe

' One thing I will never "get over", however, is bigotry. '
no AJ you just can't see it in your own life. Quite obvious to others.