thanks for the tip Josephus. Although in Canada one of the designers of ' safe' schools is in prison for paedophile.

Banjo,

Given that a minority share your bigoted and unjustified beliefs, I wouldn't be too worried about that.

<<Yep I think that once homosexuals are involved with marriage people generally will not have the same respect for the institution.>>

Not everyone is obsessed with what people do behind closed doors as you. It sounds like you have some unresolved issues there.

<<[Marriage] will become tainted, just like homosexuals are because of their sexual practices.>>

The biggest difference between homosexual sex and heterosexual sex is the biological sexes involved. Other than that, it's very much the same, with oral sex, mutual masterbation, anal sex, and yes, even strapon dildos (Google ‘pegging’). Do you fear that heterosexuals, who engage in these sorts of activities devalue your marriage, too?

Of course not, you just don't like gay people. You're probably not even sure why you don't, you just don't, and that's good enough for you.

<<I am referring to the dirty anal practices that homos reportedly practice.>>

Only some gay men (and presumably lesbians). The same goes for heterosexual couples.

<<The meanings of words do not simply evolve.>>

Actually, they do. They're always evolving. ‘Nice’ used to mean ‘stupid’, for example.

<<A fire is still a fire and a wheel is still a wheel, a train is still a train and a person is still aa person.>>

This is the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy

<<Those that want to change the meaning of the word 'marriage' desire to do so to try and gain some respectability for their sexual practices which deserve no respect.>>

Do you have any evidence for this claim?

<<Why not use 'queers, poofters or sodomists>>

Because you're just trying to be as offensive as possible. You have no rational reason for this suggestion.

--

Josephus,

If that's your only concern, then save your energy for that.

<<You wont be able to say this once all relationships become equal, you will be charged with discrimination. Freedom of expression will be curtailed.>>

Because this isn't a justification for treating gay people like second-class citizens.

Foxy,

Sorry, but I totally disagree with you. I do not believe two people of the same sex can or should be married. I believe children need a mother and a father. Anything else is an affront to decency and nature. There can be compromises on most things, but not this. If SSM does get up, it still will not be right in my view. I have nothing else to say.

Hi AJ, and I thought I was the only deviant on the plant, there is a another? ha ha.

Are the religious fundos that out of touch with the reality of what goes on behind closed (bedroom) doors in Australia that they are offended by what they speculate (unless they have a peep hole) same sex couples might be doing in the boudoir. The days of lights off and close your eyes, think of mother England are long gone, if they ever did exist at all. Well fellas when it comes to same sex marriage, its time you got a grip on it, sorry that's for Catholic priests to do, so said the Bishop, and face Reality.
You might find Reality is not a bad sort after all!

ttbn,

As I mentioned to mhaze in my last two posts to him, the ‘Won't somebody please think of the children’ argument doesn't work for several reasons:

Firstly, same-sex couples are already having children. Same-sex marriage won’t change that.

Secondly, if your concerns really are for children then you should actually support same-sex marriage, as it would help to promote stability within these families, and it would reduce stigmatisation.

Finally, there is no reliable evidence to suggest that children of same-sex parents fare any worse than children of opposite-sex parents:

Psychosocial Adjustment, School Outcomes, and Romantic Relationships of Adolescents With Same-Sex Parents (http://goo.gl/YLfghk)
Delinquency, Victimization, and Substance Use Among Adolescents With Female Same-Sex Parents (http://goo.gl/8kppjP)
Peer Relations Among Adolescents With Female Same-Sex Parents (http://66.7.216.77/~uv1258/blog/Matrimonio/archivos/wainright_2008.pdf)
A Meta-Analysis of Developmental Outcomes for Children of Same-Sex and Heterosexual Parents (http://goo.gl/WVwSSM)

There's thousands more where they came from http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=same+sex+parenting.

Now, you can deny what the evidence suggests, as I’m no doubt sure you will, but all this demonstrates is that you are more interested in believing what you want, rather than what the evidence supports.

If you are against same-sex couples and single parents parenting, then rally against that. But it makes no sense to rally against same-sex marriage for this reason. Citing it as a reason is naive at best, and disingenuous at worst.

--

Paul1405,

I'm adventurous, but not THAT adventurous!

As a liberal that has always opposed the interference by the state in personal interactions, I have always supported SSM. However, I am seriously disappointed by the partisan nature of the debate.

Until 2014/5 (just 2/3yrs ago) both major parties opposed SSM for the reason that there is a significant minority of Australians that oppose it very strongly for religious reasons and are quite prepared to change their vote on that issue alone. During this time members of the opposition including Bill Shorten were proposing a plebiscite along the lines of the Irish Plebiscite to ease the way to SSM.

The plebiscite option was adopted by the liberal party as a way of convincing the recalcitrants of the popularity of the concept and its inevitability. The moment this happened, Labor and the greens did an Olympic level back flip and opposed the Plebiscite leaving the government with a lower level postal plebiscite, even though polls clearly showed that the majority favoured the plebiscite.

To me, the rampant hypocrisy displayed by Labor and the Greens in opposing the plebiscite and delaying SSM by a year is because it keeps alive an issue that it can use to wedge the government.