Colin no-one can ever underplay the importance of this, however I was commenting on the deliberate political agenda that the churches have run and continue to run to use homosexuality as method of retaining control of the social agenda. Their influence, apart from on dinosaurs like Campbell Newman is now markedly less than a decade ago. They created the fear, they dishonestly equated male homosexuality with pedophilia and now that pedophiles are more likely to wear clerical garb they have lost the moral high ground and that allows concepts of marriage equality to gain traction.

I suggest it is a twisted logic to somehow equate same sex marriage with removing the rights of a child - usually offered by someone who cannot admit to their own homophobia.

As for the "passive majority" who oppose same sex marriage. The evidence is clear you are wrong.

In July 2011 a survey of 543 people conducted by Roy Morgan measured the support for a number of positions on marriage
68% of Australians support same-sex marriage
78% classify marriage as a ‘necessary’ institution, with only 22% opposing

In a late November 2011 Galaxy poll of over 1000 voters, 80 percent wanted Tony Abbott to allow the Liberal/National Coalition to participate in Labor's same-sex marriage conscience vote, and that 76 percent of Coalition voters wanted a same-sex marriage conscience vote.

In early 2012 the House of Representatives conducted an online survey to provide a simple means for the public to voice their views on same-sex marriage and two bills which sought to legalise it, the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012 and the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012. The survey closed on April 20, having received approximately 276,000 responses, including about 213,500 comments. Of these responses, it was reported that 64.3% supported same-sex marriage, or approximately 177,600 people.

@ Mark Harrigan
Mark, online surveys are notoriously unreliable, since they can be swamped with interest group polling. Homosexual groups are notorious for doing this, but even if this is discounted, read carefully the disclaimer contained in the report - it actually begins with: "Please note that the online survey is not a statistically significant survey" (that is, as any social scientist would tell you, the results cannot be relied on). In respect to the other surveys, we need to know who commissioned them, the types of questions asked (how they are couched to elicit certain answers) and the sampling method (how do we know they are statistically reliable - that is, representative). Besides, the samples cited are way too small to provide reliable indications on the community's mood on this issue - the sampling error would be too large to safely draw inferences from results, as many such 'snap surveys' have shown in the past. If you want to see an alternative way of obtaining the results you want, see this survey, commissioned by the Ambrose Centre: http://www.ambrosecentre.org.au/images/fact%20sheet%20for%20web.pdf
Besides, the tired old argument against people who resent having their marriage equated with fear of homosexuals (which is what homophobia means) is just nonsensical, and quite ignorant. Put yourself in the shoes of someone who has been married for years and has brought up children of their own - to be now called 'homophobics' because they see marriage as a union between a woman and a man is just preposterous. You should read the reports properly, before quoting the bits that suit your side of the argument, Mark - if for nothing else, to see what sort of challenges face people in respect to this issue. Have a look at the comments - Here are some that struck a chord with me:
"We have been married for 51 years and have 4 children and 11 grand children. The proposed law changes would downgrade our marriage to the level of the union of 2 homosexuals"
"I have been married for 37 years and I would feel very disappointed if our government were to change the definition of marriage. This would mean a lot of married couples who are opposed to same sex marriage would be just put into some category that is not what they took a vow to. Where does this leave them?"
"I do not agree that a same sex union is an equivalent relationship to a marriage between a man and a woman. I have been married for nearly thirty years and raised five children to adulthood with my wife. I think maybe without intending this bill demeans the specialness of the relationship which has so defined my life by making it one of a number of ‘valid’ expressions of human relationship. Find other ways to deal with same sex and defacto relationships but don’t make them equivalent to marriage with the stroke of a pen"
"Although you are elected as my representative I do not give you the power to change elements of my life and of the world that are far beyond the purview of any government"
"Marriage is not simply a loving, committed relationship between two people, but a unique kind of physical and emotional union which is open to the possibility of new life. It is not a discrimination against homosexual couples to uphold marriage as being between a man and a woman. Marriage and same sex unions are essentially different realities"
Also, here's one which challenges the simplistic statement you opened your posting with:
"I work in the area of child protection and so some of reasoning is based on my experience working with broken families and the effects on children. I have seen many varied family groups and my conclusions are that even though it may not be perfect, children thrive best when they have both a male and female parent"
By contrast, comments supporting SSM focus mainly on love and wants, proclaiming marriage as a good they feel entitled to:
"I have been with my boyfriend for 4 years and we love each other dearly. One day I would like to get married, but it is sad if my love is deemed inferior because of arbitrary reasons"
"I would like to support my daughter in her quest to marry, and have that marriage formally recognised with her long time partner. I have been married to my wife for more than thirty years"
"if they pass, it’ll mean that my partner and i can finally get married, after 12 years. there’ll be a narrative and language that people can understand and get their heads around. our family will gradually become safer as society is led by legislation to understand that we should be treated equally"
etc., etc.

@ Dania - regardless of the reliability or otherwise of online surveys, Liz Smalley made a claim that the majority of people are opposed to same sex unions. I have shown data to refute that claim, There is no data put forward to support it.

The support for same sex marriage in the general population is greater than 50% - deal with it

So the link is obvious? - they kill homosexuals in Uganda, Saudi Arabia and Iran, so we should legalise homosexual marriage here? Linking a despicable act with a want here is a neat trick, even though it makes no sense.

Dania: I was making no such link....your straw man is showing. What I was saying is that the trend is western, not global and that there's a lot more to the story of same sex marriage than is being protrayed in this article. Having said that, if you don't think that there is a link between repression of same sex attracted people and the issue of same sex marriage then you clearly haven't looked very hard at the subject. It all comes down to homophobic (or heterosexist if you want to get hung up on literal meanings) bigotry of one kind or another.

Forth: the link is clearly made. even if implicitly so. The terminology employed is standard: 'marriage isn't about having children', 'Uganda (or equivalent)', '[harm] the gays', 'denying same sex couples' - all within the one posting. Ask an expert in semiotics if you don't believe me. It may be that you have not consciously thought you're making the link, but for readers attuned to the discourse, there clearly is one. I am surprised you left the Christian bigots out, it's normally used as a coup de gras to these types of arguments.
I have looked very hard and extensively at the subject, I can assure you. The homosexuals are nowhere near 'oppressed' - that's just simply nonsensical queer theory, which holds that heterosexuality defines a form of stratification of modern society. Of course, we never had terms such as 'homosexual', 'gay', 'homophobia' until quite recently, which shows that, historically, there never has been any form of coherent group of people which we can identify as the 'oppressed gay' - not until this recent construct has arrived on the scene inventing the case for a fight against heteronormativity. Au contraire, statistics indicate that [in western societies], overall, homosexuals enjoy better incomes, educational outcomes, and life chances than the majority (the latter I take are the heteronormal oppressors, the 95-98% of the population). Perhaps you are referring to the demand which homosexuals make on the rest of society to recognise their sexuality and the lifestyles associated to be viewed and treated the same as heterosexuality? And because some resist such demands (and what they imply for society), we now have the term 'oppressed' bandied around. Please show me an oppressed homosexual (and please use the actual meaning of the term).

Ok Dania, I'll try again. Try reading what I write, not the straw man argument you want to have fun knocking over. I am *not* saying "Horrible acts are perpetrated against same sex attracted people therefore we should have same sex marriage.", I am saying "The problem of homophobic bigotry is global and our gains seem to be limited to the western world, therefore we need a broader outlook and should not be too self-congratulatory just yet." This is NOT a justification for same sex marriage. If I was providing a full justification for same sex marriage, this would be a far longer post as there are an incredible number of reasons why denying marriage to same sex couples is ludicrous. This is not that argument. Are we clear now?

Forth: No, we're not clear. You're talking about 'homophobic bigotry' being global in a thread of comments on an article on the implications of SSM stemming from the recent US election. No amount of patronising language will persuade me that there is no link made between your topic and SSM, and since I have explained earlier how this is so, I will not repeat myself here. I will, however, persist in resisting the discourse you're employing to exercise power over my life and that of countless others. Let's begin with 'homophobia' and 'bigotry'. People do not fear homosexuals (this is what homophobia actually means, a term invented by a homosexual) because they simply do not acquiesce to demands that homosexuality and other sexual lifestyles be treated the same as heterosexuality. Bigotry simply means intolerance of those who hold different opinions than oneself. So, it does not simply mean that a bigot is someone who does not agree with your view on something, that person must also not tolerate you on the basis of holding such a view. This means that if I say "I don't agree with your point of view that homosexuality should be equated with heterosexuality", it does not make me a bigot. For me to be a bigot I must at the same time not tolerate you because I hold a different view to yours. Of course I tolerate you, and I am happy to support your right to live your life the way you wish to - as long as it does not harm me or others in society. So, in summary, I don't have to agree with your lifestyle, or like it, or support it - but unless I am also intolerant of you by, for example, advocating that your lifestyle be suppressed, I am not a bigot. Now, imagine that I am voicing my view, and you come along and say to me: "I want you to change your view. If you don't, you are homophobic" You may even decide to go on thus: "And if you ever voice your view again, I will go to the Human Rights Commission and complain. I have a right to live in a society free from your view, which I think is inappropriate and harmful to people like myself". So now we have the two components that make a bigot: disagreement with a particular view as well as intolerance of that view. Of course, I am not saying this is the case with you, as I am sure you would never take me to the HRC or other such policing body merely because I disagree with you - I am simply making an argument to illuminate the irrational basis of the terminology which has become standard in the discourse you seem to inhabit.
You quote Uganda and the terrible way the homosexuals are treated under its laws there. But you stop there; there is no context, there is no attempt to explain the motives underpinning this state of affairs - the strategy is much in the same vein in which you treat what I say. You don't, for example, point out that Ugandans reacted at least in part to the increased trade in 'black chicken' which are purchased by rich white 'chikenhawks' trawling underdeveloped countries as tourists. This may or may not be true, but there is no engagement with the issue beyond simplistic one-liners, normally including the label 'homophobic bigots'.

oops "would NOT deny that right to any other"

"The support for same sex marriage in the general population is greater than 50% - deal with it" - I have done so, Mark. Even your physics background should be sufficient to equip you with an understanding of simple statistics, and provide familiarity with such notions as 'statistical confidence', 'representative sampling', 'confidence interval', and so on. In addition, in social sciences we control for researcher bias and look closely at the nature of questions, and we're weary of leading questions. In my reading of the shoddy examples of social research you refer to, I have no doubt that your figure of 'greater than 50%' is very unreliable and, based on my own review of the existing research, false. I also provided an example of research which points to different figures, precisely so to underpin the points regarding the unreliability of the figures you quoted which I made above.
I also took some examples of qualitative responses from one the sources yourself bandied as support for your perspective to show the basis on which many, many people in society hold to. Your view that everyone who does not agree with your perspective that SSM should be equated to marriage is a bigot is something I have dealt with in a previous post, and what you have written here does nothing but reinforces what I have already said there. For me, it also further highlights who the bigot is here. I say: I disagree with the notion that the relationship between same sex couples is the same as the relationship between opposite sex couples. Notice carefully that I don't say: same sex couples have no right to live together however they like, and do whatever they like as long as they don't harm others. All I am saying is, there is a term which singularly describes opposite sex couple's relationship when it is formalised. When same sex couples want to use this term to describe their relationship then this changes its meaning.
Now, what you are saying (at least in as far as I can decipher it) is this: "Same sex couples are the same as opposite sex couples, they are indistinguishable from them in as far as the term 'marriage' should describe, and prescribe, a formalisation of their relationship". It thus follows that you are also saying, "You have no right to distinguish marriage [as in female and male] from formalised homosexual couples". And, based on these views you then arrive at the conclusion that I should have no right to distinguish myself and the heterosexual relationship I have with my partner from that of a SS relationship by employing the term marriage to describe the nature of this relationship. If I hold to this, then I am a bigot.
Now for some analysis: I say, I don't oppose homosexuality (though it actually disgusts me) = tolerance (because, despite my disgust at a particular sexual lifestyle, I am willing to coexist with people who engage in it). I say, I don't oppose homosexuals leading the sexual lifestyle they have chosen (though it disgusts me) = tolerance. I say, please allow me to identify my relationship and sexual lifestyle as different; I don't claim here that it is better, or superior, or 'right', I simply want my identity, which is defined in marriage as it stands = a right, whether you agree with it or not (because I have a right to identify as being different, even if you dislike the way in which I am different from you).
By contrast, you say: Because homosexuality is acceptable to me, then I wish for gays to have the same rights as me, which you should also do = intolerance (i.e., you do not tolerate my position, simply because it is disagreeable, but not harmful to you). You say, because I am honestly holding that homosexuality is disgusting to me, I am a bigot (and a homophobic, as you said here and elsewhere on this website) = intolerance (because you do not tolerate my dislike, even when it is not harmful to you). You say that I have no right to think of marriage as the term describing formal heterosexual relationships, and you are asking that I must acquiesce to the wants of a special group in society = intolerance (because you do not tolerate or respect my right to claim an identity in the sense I described above, even when this is not harmful to you).
Finally, the arguments you made in the previous post are simply not sustainable. This is because you feel the gaps in where you plainly have no clue on how people think, so that it legitimises your insulting and disrespectful remarks about people whom you have not even met. So it becomes easy to simply state: [those with whom I disagree] "are inherently bigoted in their language and thinking" simply because you think that homosexual couples are the same as heterosexual couples, and on the basis of this belief then others have no right to think of such unions as inferior to theirs. Get over it, homosexuality is not the same as heterosexuality; and, yes, some people even have the temerity to think it is inferior - whether you like it or not. The question is, are you prepared to tolerate such views?

@ Dania - you've offered mno evidence to support any claim that the majority of people oppose gay marriage - only bluster.

The statement "homosexuality is not the same as heterosexuality; and, yes, some people even have the temerity to think it is inferior - whether you like it or not. The question is, are you prepared to tolerate such views?" is inherently bigoted. The statement could be used to justify an argument agains ta union between two ethnic groups (and indeed was ij the past where the union of a white and black person was regarded as inherently inferior)

You are entitled to hold the view - abd I accept your right to hold it and even express it - though I vehemently disagree. BUT this does NOT give the right to impose the consequences if your bigoted judgement of the relative value or status of a marriage union in order to deny same sex attracted couples the right to express their love through a marriage union.

Alas your prejudice stops you from seeing this and you profess "tolerance" when in fact you are anything but. Tolerance, if it were true, would extend to saying that you would never be part of a same sex marriage but do not judge others who are or forbid them from doing so.

Simple - but those with prejudice and bigotry are often incapable of seeing it

Mark

Again, I did provide evidence (here and elsewhere on The Conversation, where you invariably insulted me and others for holding different views from yours; in fact, this seems to be a habit of yours which you exercise regularly on other discussion forums as well - apparently, you're always right), it's just that you personally don't like such evidence, so you choose to ignore or denigrate it. Yet, it doesn't go away, it's still there.
I won't engage with the silly rhetoric and ad hominem attacks (remember these terms? you used them so freely when others took you to task and rubbed your nose in your own rhetoric; alas, that included myself). See, just calling someone a bigot does not mean that there is any veracity in what you're trying to argue. In fact, I have explained how, logically and in a more accurate sense of the word, some would have good cause to think you could well be the bigot here. You don't like people who think their marriage should be seen as different from SS couples, so you label them bigots. This derives from the logical fallacy which says that because person A doesn't agree with something person B says or does, then person A hates person B, using this logic, then person B is a bigot. That's the logic which you use to judge me (and others) without actually knowing anything about me, or understanding what we stand for (I suspect you're not interested in taking an interest, either). In what seems like an autistic manner, you determine that just because we are disgusted by what some people do, it follows that we also hate them; arrogantly, you seem to think we are incapable to separate feelings of disgust or our disagreement for what someone stands for, from their humanity. You seem to think we are irrational, and incapable of separating the deed from the person, and so you deduce that disgust and disagreement must equal bigotry.
What I am essentially trying to say is that you insult yourself by openly practicing simplistic argumentation, which naturally leads to obvious fallacies and, sadly, the basis for a self-issued license to insult people. I would like to explain how the premises of your argument are wrong, but seeing that more sophisticate theses appear not to work with you, I will resort to a simple metaphorical example, one which my grand kids get with ease when I try to teach logic and ethics to them. I sincerely hope it works for you, also: Some time ago, at the height of experimental alternative lifestyles (oh, okay - they were my hippy days), I knew someone who had a worm farm solely for food. He ate worms - or, rather, drunk them since he made them into puree, apparently they wiggled less. Needless to say, for some unknown reason, and despite being called 'irrational' for it, I was disgusted by the practice to the point of revulsion. However, this didn't stop me from liking the person and his family, we were great friends - we just didn't agree that worm juice was the way to go in the future, or that it should be accepted as 'normal' food (as it happens, it seems I was right, since this particular culinary delight did not take off). So you see, one can be disgusted by something which another does, and resist the practice, yet this does not mean that they are therefore bigoted towards the other person.
Sorry, but it seems you're full of sillylogisms, and I must admit that it's been fun exposing them for what they are. When you have a proper and sustainable argument, I would be happy to engage with it and I am prepared to learn and change my mind on anything. Until then, you can keep calling me a bigot if you like, I don't mind - though I honestly feel sorry for you if insulting someone is the only way you feel you can convince them of the veracity of your point of view.

Dania - it appears you have trouble with following definitions and logic. So I'll try and keep it simple

1) You claim to have offered evidence to support your claim that the majority do not support gay marriage - where is it? It's certainly not on this thread. You continue to claim the majority of people oppose gay marriage.
Here are the polls of which I am aware. They all show you are wrong.

Ambrose Centre for Religious Liberty (November 2011) found a majority of voters support the idea of same-sex marriage.

Age/Nielsen poll (November 2011) found 62% of voters would like to see gay marriage legalised,

Galaxy poll (August 2012) showed 64% per cent of people believe same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

Galaxy poll (February 2012) showed 62% per cent of people believe same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

Roy Morgan poll (July 2011) found that 68% of Australians support same-sex marriage.

House of Representatives survey measuring 276,000 responses (January 2012) reported that 64.3% supported same-sex marriage.

2) You keep misrepresenting the definition of Bigotry I am using. You state I am guilty of a logical fallacy which says that because person A doesn't agree with something person B says or does, then person A hates person B, using this logic, then person B is a bigot. If that's what I was saying - you would be right. But it isn't - as i have tried to explain numerous times.

Lets again keep it simple. The definition of a bigot is a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance (look it up)

You have clearly expressed your disgust numerous times toward homosexuality - but you have gone further than that. You have used the argument (which is in itself circularly fallacious) that because a marriage between same sex attracted humans is inferior to a heterosexual marriage (for which you offer no evidence) allowing same sex marriage will demean the status of traditional marriage (again there is no evidence for this).

Yet a person's sexuality is part of their essential humanity. To deny a person the right to express their love for another person through marriage is a denial of that person's essential humanity - something you would not deny a heterosexual couple but would deny a homosexual couple because you start from the prejudiced premise that they are "disgust you".

To deny them that right is to express hatred and intolerance to them This is especially true when that expression can have no possible bearing on your own life or cause you any personal harm.

Out of your own mouth you have remain stubbornly devoted to this opinion and prejudice and your wish to deny same sex attracted couple the right to marry is an explicit expression of hatred and intolerance - the textbook definition of bigotry.

Perhaps you might also reflect that you have debated numerous people on this thread and they have all reached a similar conclusion in relation to your bigotry?

Oh dear! Why do you keep referring to polls commissioned by interest groups? The Galaxy polls you're citing were commissioned by the Australian Marriage Equality (a homosexual lobby group), run within omnibus surveys (that is, in the context of other questions, about which we have no idea what they are, or how successfully they lead respondents into providing the answers elicited by these people). They are not worth the paper they are written on! Also, if you think the figures bandied around by these groups, some as high as 7 or 8 in 10 Australians backing SSM, then good luck, that's all I can say. And you misquote the Ambrose Centre survey - I pointed it out to you in the mistaken belief that you would understand how it illuminates the fact that it is about how one formulates the questions asked of participants that influences what results one gets. It also points out that if you were to use an ordinal scale, respondents did not feel strongly about SSM (only one in seven did! and in fact this aligns with the homosexuals' own polls, which indicate that among all their respondents, only about 28% strongly agreed). When asked to rank the importance of SSM in a group of six issues, it ranked last! It also found that: "A majority of Australians agree that traditional marriage between a man and a woman is an important social institution, and that where possible, children should be raised by their biological mother and father". We should uphold marriage as between a man and a woman = 69%; marriage is not simply about love, etc. = 59%; children should be raised by their natural mother & father = 73%; the issue of SSM is a distraction = 61%; we should not rush into SSM = 59%; etc., etc... Anyway, I won't dwell further on this, if you rather believe in data sets elicited by homosexual groups, then go for it.
Now, for the statement "You have used the argument (which is in itself circularly fallacious) that because a marriage between same sex attracted humans is inferior to a heterosexual marriage (for which you offer no evidence) allowing same sex marriage will demean the status of traditional marriage (again there is no evidence for this)". Let's be clear about this: I have not, and could not possibly think that SSM is inferior to marriage. This is because same sex marriage is not possible; you see, marriage refers to a particular relationship between a woman and a man. What advocates of same sex 'marriage' want is not actually possible to obtain. There can of course be legal recognition of homosexual couples (or any relationship between two or more people which involves a sexual relationship between them), which I am not opposed to and I would fully support (to an extent - I will never support the legalisation of 'man/boy love', for instance). You may call such legal unions 'marriages', but that does not make them marriages. Now you ask me for evidence on how "same sex marriage will demean the status of traditional marriage". Well, it can't demean its status not only for the reason I have just given, but also because a marriage between a man and a woman will always be different from that between people of the same sex (note that I have used the word 'different', not 'inferior'). This is the point you and others keep missing, we want to be different, the homosexuals want to be different, so why must we change the meaning of marriage? You also keep asking for 'evidence' - how about you provide some that backs your view on how if homosexuals are allowed to marry will change nothing for heterosexuals?
I take nothing out of a given textbook - you do. If you're curious how your mind has been shaped by the insidious homosexual discourse, read the text 'After the ball' (Kirk and Masden). Alternatively, you can read their previous and much briefer homosexual marketing manifesto (The overhauling of straight America) here: http://library.gayhomeland.org/0018/EN/EN_Overhauling_Straight.htm Here is a brief extract to demonstrate to you how close what you're arguing is actually parroting the homosexual agenda:
"It is especially important for the gay movement to hitch its cause to accepted standards of law and justice because its straight supporters must have at hand a cogent reply to the moral arguments of its enemies. The homophobes clothe their emotional revulsion in the daunting robes of religious dogma, so defenders of gay rights must be ready to counter dogma with principle"
And here is the intent, clearly spelled:
"And when we say talk about homosexuality, we mean just that. In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the tent--only later his unsightly derriere!"
After you read the rest, I invite you to reflect on whether your thinking might have been shaped by the three decades of marketing campaign this plan has underpinned. You accuse me, yet again, of bigotry simply because I don't agree with the idea of same sex marriage. You do this with reference to standard rhetorical propaganda (see the quotes above!), like "Yet a person's sexuality is part of their essential humanity. To deny a person the right to express their love for another person through marriage is a denial of that person's essential humanity". I don't deny anyone the freedom to love whomever they want. However, and let's leave my 'prejudice' aside for a moment here, marriage is not a box of chocolates, or a bunch of flowers or a new Merc which one gifts to another to demonstrate their love for them. It is a heterosexual construct, and as such can never be a homosexual gift to their partner(s). I don't deny anyone anything, it's just that they can't have something that they can't possess. The only way they can 'have it' is by changing the meaning of marriage, which - and this is very simple - will no longer be exclusively between opposite sex couples. So then it will not be the same, will it? This is not pie in the sky, because lots of things will have to change along with the legal definition. This has been covered elsewhere by others and myself, so I am not going to cover it again here.
In the end, I am writing all of this not to primarily convince you or others who think like you, though if I can get you to even pause to reflect briefly on some of the discourse that inhabits you, that would be great. I am using the kinds of postings exemplified by yours as a means to challenge and resist the homosexual discourse, and expose it for what it is. For your contribution to this aim, my sincere thanks.

@ Dania - that's a truly impressive piece of logical conniptions to avoid confronting your own prejudice on this matter - but this one was particularly amusing

"I don't deny anyone anything, it's just that they can't have something that they can't possess."

Laughable and Pitiable at the same time.

And I'm sure Nielsen, Galaxy and Roy Morgan will be interested to discover that they produce results to please the groups that commission the polls. Such a world view conveniently allows you to refute anything you don't agree with - it must be sad to hold such views in your head but it's clear they are incapable of changing

Mark, I said everything I need to say in response to your diatribes. You don't offer anything new, so therefore I won't waste my time going over the same points I made a few times yet again. (For the benefit of other people), note that you have not been able to refute any of these points, you simply do what most prejudiced individuals do when they are held to account when they push their views on to others, which is to continuously attack the person rather than their arguments. Note also that when I base my views on facts, then I am entitled to be biased. You are not, because you rely on shoddy facts. An online thesaurus describes this as: "a person's bias is based on facts, but prejudice occurs without a person knowing or examining the facts". Lastly, it is interesting that you find a statement of fact amusing, this fact being that homosexual relationships are not the same as heterosexual ones, and so it follows that marriage cannot describe the former because the term has always been describing the latter. But you don't have to believe me, you only have to look at what homosexuals themselves think of the difference, for instance see this last paragraph written by the well known homosexual scholar, Rictor Norton, in his pitifully inadequate piece, 'Taking a "Husband". A History of Gay Marriage':
'I'm vastly amused whenever I observe a man and a woman trying to achieve between themselves that degree of intimacy that is only possible between persons of the same gender. It's even more touching to watch their attempts to found a friendship upon the rutting instinct. It simply cannot be done. However much heterosexuals try to compensate for the failures of their own marriages by projecting their frustrations upon homosexuals, they'll never overcome the probability that heterosexual "romance" is a cultural superfluity'
So you see, I am in agreement with the homosexuals here, and I wouldn't dream of comparing my relationship to what people like Norton think homosexual relationships are; nor, obviously, does he. So what is the problem then? I can keep my marriage and homosexuals can have whatever they want as legal recognition of their form of 'rutting' preferences. Win/win, don't you think?

Diana do you understand what a non-sequitur is?

"this fact being that homosexual relationships are not the same as heterosexual ones, and so it follows that marriage cannot describe the former because the term has always been describing the latter"

Apparently not

Plus the fact that you then selectively quite a single same sex attracted person who doesn't want to get married and then use that as justification to say "So you see, I am in agreement with the homosexuals " typifies your stereotypical prejudicial genralisations and are simply further evidence for your unexamined bigotry in this regard. Many same sex attracted people DO want to get married and DO think their intimacy is of equal value - but their opinion counts for naught? Hmm, seems close to that dictionary definition of prejduce and bias you talked about doesn't it?

But let's follow it through - if Ia single heterosexual who argues he/she doesn't like heterosexual marriage (there's a lot of single people out there who choose a life like that you know) is that an argument for the prohibition of heterosexual marriage?

(By the way - you clearly have no understanding of the history of marriage - for centures it was about property and power rather than mutual attraction. It was a way of forging political alliances, sealing business deals, and expanding the family labor force. For many people, marriage was an unavoidable duty. For others, it was a privilege, not a right. Servants, slaves, and paupers were often forbidden to wed, and even among the rich, families sometimes sent a younger child to a nunnery or monastery rather than allow them to marry and break up the family’s landholding. - but then evidence appears not to be your forte).

You know, at the end of the day. I have no problems with the fact that you don't "approve" of anything. Only with the idea that you think your approval, or lack thereof, should have any influence over anyone else

oh,oh - there are some more big words. You're going to teach me argument now, Mark? I don't know what a non sequitur is ... I suppose I should shrink in awe when I am faced with such terms. This is hilarious, especially as in an effort to use such big words, you manage to produce a non sequitur yourself, lol; so I'll play along for a while longer, because it's fun. Lets, see ... I am saying that heterosexual relationships are not the same as homosexual ones (note that 'sex' is part of both terms, which describes the nature of the relationship). For this proposition to lead to a non sequitur (note, there is no hyphen in the correct use of the term), they ought to relate exactly in the same way to lead to the same conclusion regarding marriage - no? The term marriage has always been used to describe a relationship between a woman and a man - it has a specific semiotic significance, and no other. So if you say to someone "I know a person who got married recently", then the symbolic meaning is that that person 'married' (the signifier) to a person of the opposite sex (the symbol). Get it? Now for the non sequitur you have just produced: yes, marriage has been in most historical contexts an oppressive social institution, used to establish strategic alignments and property arrangements. But this does not mean that marriage has not always been mostly between women and men, otherwise you could cite with ease where marriage was used to marry same sex individuals if it was only about power, money and property. See the non sequitur there? It's using an unconnected premise to arrive at a nonsensical conclusion: marriage was about power and property, therefore marriage can also describes homosexual relationships. Regarding my 'approval', I agree that it is irrelevant, even if I was so arrogant to interfere in someone's life, whether it disgust me or not. However, my vote isn't, just as the votes of all those people whom you think are in a minority.
As for the rest of your comment, please see my previous postings. For now, I can't stop laughing.

Okay Dania I'll spell it out for you since it appears your fallacy is invisible to you.

If the relationship between people that defined marriage had been constant always you might have had some basis for your conclusion. As I have demonstrated the nature of the relationship that defines marriage (and indeed the reason for it's existence) has changed greatly over the course of human history - and indeed between cultures.

And it hasn't always been between opposite sexes

http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-marriage.html

That is why your post is a non sequitur - because your conclusions are not logically supported by your premise - despite the fact that some of the elements your premise are factually correct. It's also completely circular.

Given your constant demonstration of these posts of a somewhat narrow and intolerant attitude and understanding to anything that doesn't fit your limited world view I suppose this is not surprising.

Regardless you contrinue to demonstrate bigotry by conitnuing to assert the notion that your approval, or lack thereof, should have any influence over anyone else.

Fortunately the outcome does not depend on such prejudiced limited attitudes. The world progresses. Just as we have learned to value the role of women through equal political franchise, the idiocy of ethnic discrimination and discrimination based on sexual preference so too the world is moving toward understanding that same sex marriage is an improved form of equal recognition of the humanity of fellow beings.

More and more jurisdictions are legalising same sex marriage - so it's just a matter of time.

Bad Luck eh?

Mark, it's really sad to see such pitiful attempts to patronise someone you don't agree with. Don't you realise how silly your arguments are? It is no shame, you know, to sometimes admit that you're wrong especially when faced with indisputable evidence and arguments. Trying to continuously recast your own in response, rather than actually evaluate the opposing argument in light of facts, just demonstrates your prejudice against someone whom you disagree with. I said before, I don't mind if you think of me as being a bigot, those close to me and know me for whom I really am, you are simply nothing, and all I see is cristophobic and heterophobic person intent in mindlessly supporting the shady politics aimed at banning heteronormativity as if it is an evil thing. I feel sorry for you, since you have volunteered your intellect to maintaining and legitimising a discourse of disrespect and misrepresentation.
Blind in your efforts to portray me as illogical and a bigot, you created yet another non sequitur. You confuse homosexual relationships with marriage, and quote the pitiful few instances (based on very shaky evidence) where there were parodies of heterosexual marriage enacted by homosexuals, in instances such as religious rituals, power plays, and so on. The website you cite contains a very laughable 'history of gay marriage', obviously written by someone very sympathetic to 'gay rights'. Besides being crude in as far as historical analyses go, it contradicts itself regularly in its effort to portray homosexual relationships (which obviously are not 'marriages') as marriages. So, for instance it proclaims 'evidence' of state sanctioned marriages in Mesopotamia and Egypt, yet the caption under the graphic states "Ancient evidence survives of kingdom-sanctioned, same-sex cohabitation, as in the tomb drawings of Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep". Which is to be? Co-habitation or marriage? So here is the new non sequitur you produce: homosexual relationships were at times viewed as 'marriages' in a parody of the norm, so this means that we should accept homosexual 'marriage' as a new norm today. See what you're actually arguing? You simply ignore the fact that marriage has always, and predominantly, been linked human procreation. Marriage has always been tied to copulation (which is the main way through which babies are made, though there is now AI, which is arguably still related only to male and female), whatever the normative structures which constructed the formal relationship between couples. This is a crucial fact, and yet you keep circumventing it and grasp, instead at shoddy 'historical' analyses which only manage to strengthen the basis for this fact.
Oh yes, I have no doubt that you're right, and that in a few years we will see 'gay marriage' being legalised. It is not merely that it is 'bad luck' for me and millions of other bigots, but that this 'right' would have been obtained through misrepresentation and lies. The rights of homosexual people to live free of violence and fear is not what is at stake here; it may surprise you, but I will always fight against violence and intolerance, no matter who the individual is, or whether I disagree with their life style or political creed, etc. No. What is at stake here is liberty. I am old enough to know how communist regimes came about - and this attack on heterosexual life is so resoundingly similar to Marxist ideology that it's frightening. You take a set of injustices, like unequal access to society's economic resources and a class system (or abuse of homosexuals?), and advocate the overthrow of capitalism (or overthrow of heteronormativity?), the killing of the bourgeoisie and the banishment of philosophical and ethical arguments which do not agree with your rhetoric (including religion, by the way). It is all legitimised by 'rights', and by 'scientific' rationality. And then you end up with communism - have you ever lived under a communist regime, Mark? No doubt you'll think its funny to compare the new regime we'll have when heteronormativity is banned with communist states, but you know what they say - "he who laughs last ...". And you know what the political commissars used to say to those who resisted the advance of communism around the globe? Something along the lines of "It's just a matter of time, so bad luck, eh?"

@ Dania

The point you continue to miss is this,

There is no basis to claim that allowing same sex attracted people to marry will in any way harm "traditional" marriage. As Malcolm Turnbull ably said - those who use this as an argument are "''dripping with the worst sort of hypocrisy''.

And to continue to maintain this argument is the act og bigotry since it treats same sex attracted people with hatred and intolerance.

You are free to have these views - but no amount of verbal gymnastics or attempts by you to avoid confronting thisintolerance you display changes that this is your approach. If anything your posts just continue to provide evidence for it

Whatever, Mark. I think you must've called me a bigot about a hundred times. The sad part is that you continuously rely on untruths to justify your insolence and disrespect of my view. For example, just in the previous post of yours you declared that, in view of your belief that I claimed SSM will hurt traditional marriage means that "to continue to maintain this argument is the act of bigotry since it treats same sex attracted people with hatred and intolerance". You simply make up stuff, and that's not very nice - it is quite unethical behaviour which diminishes your point of view. Not agreeing with homosexual marriage does not mean that one hates homosexuals. This proposition is something that is made up by homosexual propagandists - in the words of Kirk and Madsen whom I cited before as the authors of the marketing of homosexuality pamphlet in 1987, "“At a latter stage of the media campaign for gay rights it will be time to get tough with remaining oppo­nents. To be blunt, they must be vilified". This is exactly what you are doing. Good luck with continuing to do so, you'll get far in rational debate about this issue with those who do not agree with your premise. For myself, I think I exhausted all hope of having a rational debate with you; I have debunked all the false premises, untruths and notions about this issue, and since you have nothing else to say other rather repeat your mantra (which is no doubt a clever idea on your part), I really don't have more time to spend on you. Thanks for taking the time to engage with me in the exchange, such as it is.

@ Dania - you have claimed SSM will hurt traditional marriage - repeatedly. You have offered no evidence for it other than the claims of some who feel their marriage will be hurt - which either means they themselevs are bigots or their marriage is extremely frail if its value is determined by some one external. But if you are now withdrawing that claim please do so? :)

You also used that claim as a justification for saying SSM should not be allowed. I have established clearly why that is bigotry since it shows intolerance and hatred for a group of people by denying them the right to express their love for each other and have their relationship recognised with the same status as heterosexual marriage.

In essence your argument is that because, on your limited interpretation, marriage tradiationally has been predominantly defined as a union between opposite genders it should awlays remain so.

This is laughably similar to one of the arguments against Female Suffrage - that they have never had the vote before and are inherently inferior and so the status quo should apply - no vote for women. That is now seen for the ridiculous prejudice it was. You have benefited from that change of views.

But in your world apparently nothing should change that offens tyour moral sensibilities. I don't agree - neither do a lot of other people - and evenutally their opinions will carry - whether you like it or not.

By the way - many on this thread have pointed out how insufferably condescending your tone of supposed moral superioity has been in this discussion - I would suggest that doesn't help your case either :)

Well, even a broken clock is right twice a day. I have indeed been condescending, it started when you called me names as a method of engaging with someone you disagree with. I am truly glad that you have finally discerned this, it indicates some capacity for multidimensional analysis, though I am not sure you understand that I am being so on purpose, and for greater impact in exposing the prejudiced premises employed by 'righteous' individuals like you (btw, this is also condescending, in case you missed it). You see, despite considering myself a factory worker, I do have some education (that is, not mere training) even though I don't string the letters I have earned through decades of study and scholarship after my name. I can think for myself, and I am not easily persuaded by big words and clever turns of phrase; although I appreciate and treasure honest and respectful debate, I simply abhor nonsensical arguments stemming from deep-seated prejudice and hate, hurled at opponents in one-liners - right before pronouncing them bigots for the simple fact that they have different views. I especially dislike people who think of themselves as 'experts' on the matter at hand when they so obviously have no idea of what they're talking about, but nevertheless display 'holier-than-thou' attitudes at what I have to say. This guarantees turning me into a condescending and sarcastic individual, as you (and others) have correctly observed. If you and these others want to have a civil debate, then you're more than welcome to engage me with facts and proper argument, not try to remove me from it through insults and demeaning observations about my capacity to understand your point of view.
To get to a point where we can discuss the issue of SSM in a more civil manner, I recommend you undertake broader reading, especially that part of the relevant literature you don't agree with. Here is some advice I used to give my research students, yours for free: keep an open mind, and when reading something you don't agree with, don't let prejudice stop you from looking at the premises for the argument that is being made. You need to understand the argument before you can critique or even criticise it effectively. Otherwise you may find well-deserved condescension rather than respect and acquiescence when you run into someone like me. And believe me, I am not alone in resisting this dominant discourse you feel safe within; you and your kind are likely to meet increasing resistance, so you'll be well-served to heed my advice above. If you don't believe me, here is an example (not related to this at all, except to show you how others take the Mickey out of righteous Marks :`] ): townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2011/08/18/masters_of_intolerance/page/full/