Well done UK MPs. My thoughts on this topic when discussed a while ago were driven by the (obviously wrong) impression that such a vote could never get through the Commons and losing such a vote by going too early would put the cause back a long way.

This may push Australia to have another look at the issue, although my (again possibly incorrect) feeling is that it would be hard to get enough Liberals (equivalent of Tories) to support it right now.

Julia Gillard doesn't support it either.

Not surprising really. Australia could hardly be held as a beacon for promoting equality and integration over the years

Unbelievable response.

She's to behind in the polls to support it, disappointing for someone who doesn't blame her position on religion.

I thought he was just contradicting himself. But this response is to the point and excellent.

On the whole 'traditional marriage' malarky – perhaps some of those who propound such an idea would like a return to some of what is described rlhererl?

Marriages of one person to another, without their consent, for political reasons, for instance.

Perhaps we should return to an understanding of 'conjugal rights', whereby a husband could rape his wife with impunity?

Polygamous marriage has existed in many cultures over the centuries – it's even acceptable in the [iBible[/i, so [perhaps the religious traditionalists would like us to return to that situation.

Interesting to note from that article the Catholic priest saying he wouldn't marry a couple who were not planning on breeding.

Two things occur: presumably, his god has some plan for how to feed the world's bulging population?

And second, if he was approached by, say, an injured veteran from Afghanistan who, because of those injuries could not possibly produce a child, would he refuse to marry them too?

Well indeed – or any woman who has had a hysterectomy (which, of course, leads to being post-menopausal, even if young).

Reading through your drivel, I think you are getting confused with what constitutes a legally allowed relationship which can therefore lead to marriage. Being homosexual is not illegal, other scenarios with which you are trying to compare are. This particular argument is whether persons in a legally allowed homosexual relationship have the same rights to get married as heterosexual persons. The other scenarios are not relevant to the argument because they are illegal whether the persons (or animals) want to get married or not.

In my opinion, the reason why there is so much discussion over this is because the argument against the legalisation of homosexual marriage is purely a face with which to argue against the legality of homosexual relationships.

Therefore, unless you produce a valid reason for your arguing against it, you are a bigot.

Why?

OK, now pay attention because, as it has already been explained several times, this is your last chance to understand.

The union between same sex couples cannot produce children at all, hence NONE (0%, zip, zilch) with birth defects.
The union between an incestuous couple differs in the high level of birth defects it can produce.

"What if the incestuous couple use contraception" is a stupid irrelevance because, as far as I know, the use of contraception is not and has never been a mandatory condition for the allowing of opposite-sex marriage nor is it proposed as a mandatory condition for same-sex marriage.

So the justification for same sex marriage has moved from equal rights for couples in love to being because they cannot have kids!!!! What a bizarre idea.

That would make them "unequal" to heterosexuals in the first place - which, is rather the point that the anti-gay marriage make.

So, single-handedly you seem to have demonstrated there is no rational reason that justifies gay marriage. QED.

No.


Indeed.


You are either thicker than a whale sandwich or a troll. Possibly both.

]

If you are so intelligent, why make childish comments? The fact is that I have tried to debate the issue seriously and no one has come up with anything coherent - just the usual insults and emotional claptrap. So, I must conclude you are a "

You are either thicker than a whale sandwich or a troll. Possibly both.'"