//But that is not what the lobbyists want they want to be able to walk into any Church and demand to use their premises as a Wedding venue, and if refused employ barristers to charge the Church with discrimination.//

No they don't. They just want to get married. And like straight people, many of them aren't religious and wouldn't be seen dead in a church.

//I don't know why people have to say they have 'nothing personal against queers' - it sounds like a part applogy for your their opinions and values.//

//grubs, lunatics and perverts.//

Jesus, you sound like Mr/Mrs/Mr Garrison.

FAG DRAG!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csnlMYIg1KI

mhaze,

A bold return after the porky pies you were caught-out telling a few weeks ago. Welcome back to the 'same-sex marriage' topic.

<<There is no argument used in favour of SSM that doesn't also apply to polygamy …>>

Perhaps not, but there are arguments against polygamy that do not apply to same-sex marriage. Allowing high-status men to hoard women at the expense of lower-status men, for example, isn’t exactly conducive to a healthy or happy society. So, yes, polygamy does affect others, contrary to your claim.

<<Yes, its just one view, but search and yea shall find.>>

I tried, but couldn’t find any other same-sex marriage supporters claiming that the idea of same-sex marriage was to destroy marriage altogether. It sounds like you found some. Could you link us to them? I’m still not buying this paranoid-sounding Reds-under-the-bed line and, well, let's just say there are some trust issues between us now.

<<Its not dissimilar to the understanding that the original pro-abortion advocates saw it as a means to destroy black culture in the USA.>>

Could you cite your references please?

Either way, abortion is a vital service, so it all turned out okay. It’s a pity you don’t seem to entertain the possibility that all could turn out fine in this instance, too - even if it really is all just a cunning ploy to seize political power internationally for the working class through a social revolution to expropriate the capitalist classes and place the productive capacities of society into collective ownership.

*Snigger*

Here is a researched argument on SSM.
http://www.mffc.org.au/news/Same%20sex%20marriage%20Q&A%20%20and%20implications.pdf

5. What are the consequences of redefining marriage on marriage itself ?

Once marriage is redefined, the law would decree that traditional marriage and samesex marriage are equivalent, each enjoying equal status and rights. The values and uniqueness of traditional marriage would be watered down and amended to make way to for new rules and regulations introduced by the Government in accommodating gay values and practices. This change would be a most confronting to supporters of traditional marriage.

6. How does the legalisation of same-sex marriage affect our human rights?

When more rights are granted to the homosexual community, the rest of the general community would logically be accorded less freedom.. Experience overseas has shown how the legalisation of same-sex marriage has resulted in curtailing certain human rights, in particular, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. Citizens holding opposing views on same-sex marriage have been sued, prosecuted, fined, jailed and even sent to a mental institution.

Dear Josephus,

Thank You for the link from "Marriage and Family for
Christ".

Initially I got quite surprised when I saw the MFFC
initials in the link. I thought you were referring to
the "Michigan Fly Fishing Club". But obviously you
weren't.

There seems to be a battle going on over gay marriage
in Australia. It reveals a great deal. The people
quoting the Bible tell us all sorts of things -
That they are against same sex marriage "Because
the Bible tells them".

That's not quite accurate.
The Bible tells them a great deal of things that
they ignore.

Foxy have a listen,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rQ_mphb7HU

//When more rights are granted to the homosexual community, the rest of the general community would logically be accorded less freedom.//

No, that's not how it works. And that would have to be one of the daftest non-sequiturs I have ever seen. People who misuse the term 'logically' like that should be taken out back and shot.

Rights are not a finite resource: they can be created with the stroke of a pen. What rights did men lose when women were granted suffrage? What rights did white people lose because of the civil rights movement?

You don't have to steal freedoms from people in order to give them to other people.