About 4.6 per cent of the population is believed
to be homosexual according to a new Roy Morgan
study, although many of these people also have
some heterosexual experience and many actually
marry. The great majority of gay men and lesbian
women, however, form stable, long-lasting relationships
with a person of the same sex at some time in their
lives. Changing attitudes have made these unions far
more socially acceptable than in the past, and , in
fact, some churches are now willing to perform
weddings for gay couples, although these marriages have
no legal force (as yet).

A more significant change, perhaps, is the willingness of
many courts to grant custody of children to a gay parent.
In some cases, families with two gay adults are created
, usually when a divorced lesbian mother forms a
relationship with another woman - as in the case of
Dr K. Phelps.

It should also be noted that for several years, moreover,
social welfare agencies in New York and other large cities
have been placing orphaned or runaway gay teenage boys -
who are unwelcome in heterosexual foster homes - in the
custody of gay males, usually couples.

Another interesting fact is the rapid advances in the
availability and technology of artificial insemination, if
they so choose, lesbian women may well be able to become
mothers without having had any heterosexual relationships
at all.

Times are changing.

Don't get in the way of radical YES voters.

Former prime minister Tony Abbott has minor injuries after being assaulted in a Hobart street.

Mr Abbott was allegedly head-butted by a same sex marriage supporter, Sky News has reported.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/37177037/tony-abbott-assaulted-in-hobart/

Were the police called? Was an arrest made? Or is this another Bolt type beat up.

Failing to report a serious indictable offence is a crime. A serious indictable offence is one that comes with a maximum penalty of 5 years or more and includes assault. If Abbott is concealing a serious indictable offence he should be arrested!

Paul1405, 'was the police called'? 'Was an arrest made'? If you are typical of the YES campaign, you have displayed your unworthiness to be in ANY debate and just destroyed any chance of being taken seriously. In fact you have shown yourselves to be of the lowest of everything good about society. Let's just have a go at answering your ignorantly conceived questions. The answer to both questions is NO! If Abbott was even contemplating it, and he had every right to, he did not get the chance because the low life YES scumbag did everything in his power to escape from being held to account. Again another irrelevant YES voter who won't stand and take any criticism but are the first to dish it out.
I had an opinion when this campaign started, now more than ever you have helped me cement that opinion because you and your YES queers have been so disgusting and shown yourselves to be of a lower cast than 'normal' human beings. You do not deserve the right to anything since you have chosen to conduct yourselves in the way you have.

Dear phanto,

You had written;

“It is bullying and intimidation by any other name. When people fear for their jobs because they do not have the same opinions as the organisation about issues which are peripheral to the reason for that organisation's existence then it is a bad look for that organisation.”

I agree.

But you seem to be contending that rather than being peripheral to the Catholic Church's existence, resistance to the right of gay people to marry is instead pivotal? That to me would be a pretty sad indictment on the church and its many efforts of social justice and care.

The Church may well be opposed to SSM just as the AFL is supportive. Neither position could be called pivotal to the respective organisation's existence. Your attempts at delineation to make your argument are neither sound nor consistent. Perhaps another tack might be in order.

Dear Armchair Critic,

The Catholic school system alone consumes nearly 1.5 billion dollars of taxpayer's money each year. This is not tax foregone but directly out of the pockets of all Australians.

Therefore I think they are under more of an obligation to accommodate people expressing the values of the wider community than a small business person who employs a dozen odd contractors to do childrens parties.

Ultimately I am not an absolutist when it comes to free speech. There were those on this forum who defended Monis' right to send hateful letters to the widows of slain Australian soldiers (Bazz). Even those who are diehard free speech advocates recognise it is not without consequences.

But I do think Australians have a strong perception of whether those consequences are fair, and rightly enough those reading the statements of the business owner in case are voicing their concerns, including myself.

ALTRAV, do you really think I was being serious? Arrest Abbott, I don't think so. Got to get up early in the morning to fool one as sharp as you.

There are probably millions out there right now waiting with baited breath for your next bout of incisive prognostications on all manor of subjects that are discussed here.
I particularly liked this pearler from you "I hate to be the one to remind everyone of the old saying 'never discuss religion or politics'."
So what do you want to discuss on a political forum. Betty Crockers Cook Book?