There is a slippery slope at work where homosexuals have been emboldened to fight for further ‘rights’. Canada is a prime example where legislation seeks to protect homosexuals from being offended and attacked in ways which they do not protect heterosexuals. You dare not criticise homosexuals at all lest you risk serious consequences such as losing your job.

Homosexuals know that they can bully and emotionally manipulate the public and they use these same tactics to try and get things which they have no right to.

Same-sex marriage might be legal but that does not make it reasonable. Unless we continue to watch for such manipulation then we could be facing a situation where a very small minority has a disproportionate influence over the rest of society’s rights.

phanto,

One of the prerequisites for Democracy is a tolerance
of dissenting opinions. That is considered fundamental
to a democracy. Democracies must avoid the danger of the
"tyranny of the majority."

In some cases the democratic
process may work in such a way that a small minority -
Sikhs in India, for example - is rendered permanently
powerless. For groups in this position, democracy might
as well not exist, and it is important that governments
should recognise the grievances of minorities that
have little political clout. If the losers in the
political process do not accept the legitimacy of the
process under which they have lost, they may well resort to
more radical tactics outside the institutional framework.

Why should same sex couples be treated differently to
anyone else in the society in which they live, work,
pay taxes. Why should they have less rights then anyone
else?

Yes, I did, phanto.

<<You didn’t answer the question.>>

“Because that's the way they're treated ….” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7798#240878)

<<So why mention [second-class citizenship] at all if it cannot be legally righted by marriage?>>

It would be, to some extent. I never claimed otherwise.

<<Awareness of what?>>

Their plight.

<<How do [love and marriage] overlap?>>

Because most people marry out of love.

<<… you resort to labelling people and trying to insult me by inferring that I am a bigot.>>

You demonstrate that you are a bigot. I don’t need to infer anything.

<<So how do we determine who is first class and who is second class?>>

By how people are treated.

<<How do these two issues overlap?>>

You don’t think marriage has anything to do with love at least some of the time? Please explain.

<<We all share the same space but we can’t have different opinions about homosexual love?>>

At no point have I even alluded to such a suggestion.

<<How does having different opinions about homosexual love negate SSM?>>

It doesn’t, and nor have I suggested anything of the sort.

<<You can negate homosexual love for many reasons but still agree with SSM.>>

How would one “negate” it? I’m intrigued.

<<Legal marriage has nothing to with love.>>

I think most here would disagree with you on that.

<<You have yet to demonstrate that is not.>>

This is the Shifting of the Burden of Proof fallacy (http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof). You made the claim first.

<< Same-sex marriage might be legal but that does not make it reasonable.>>

Correct. What makes it reasonable is the notion of equality.

--

Big Nana,

There are an infinite number of things we could ‘not do’ because of where they may lead, but we can’t live like that, nor could rights be distributed or withheld like that.

It is irrational to stand in the way of something that is harmless because of what people might then want in the future. Why not save your energy for when some start asking for recognition of genuinely harmful relationships, if that’s your only concern?

Somehow I don't think it is.

AJ Philips,
De' facto relationships are not marriage as registered as such. Are they EQUAL to a married couple? Are they fighting for equality. NO! Yet they happily exist as equal in our society without marriage certification. It is the bonds they mutually share that keeps them together, not a Government certificate.

Homosexual relationships are not marriage as such. Are they EQUAL to a married couple? NO! What is the real reason to fight for marriage certification? Certainly not to happily exist in our society, though they imagine their relationship will improve because they have registered it with the Government

Foxy, "..Sikhs in India, for example"

Same scoopers you imply?

http://www.sikhanswers.com/modern-youth-issues/sikh-attitude-to-homosexuality/

Foxy:

Homosexuals have all the rights they need already.