Search results

this is naive. students at schools would then have to be told that you don't have to marry someone of opposite sex, thus both sexes will be on their mind, and in the event of even a slightest chemical imbalance, this will encourage homosexuality it's better to encourage the tried and tested...

i'm not going to support something i know is wrong

both

ppl opposed to homosexuality are branded bigots (unfairly, as homosexuality is a concept not a person) i am not opposed to giving equal rights to homosexuals (the same rights everyone enjoy = civil union for gays, marriage for straights) for the record im not homophobic, doing so is against...

are different from opposition why is it so unfortunate for ppl to oppose something they don't believe is right?

i believe homosexuality is wrong, and an encouragement of it would hence not be good for society you'll disagree, lets agree to disagree

it's pretty obvious that children need someone of the same sex as them in order to guide them growing up (puberty etc)

people rightly see it as different gay =/= straight

i'm not pro polygamy, im just illustrating what changing the definition of marriage could do

there's an opposing gay lobby which drowned out the acl at a recent sydney rally

this isn't a suggestion. this is already the case

does have "civil union" have stigma attached

how is this not happening?

this still isn't clear

they already have equal rights. they want to do away with their inner feeling that what they are doing is wrong

then change the name of civil union it only sounds nicer because it has positive connotations that are about to be damaged by this move

u haven't addressed the fact that what u are suggesting may imply (i have sought clarification from the person who initially suggested it) that churches are banned from marrying ppl

what's the difference?

ok what if i take back the sexual part. this would clarify what i meant.

ie there are no valid non-religious arguments (pretty unanimous) against gay marriage. therefore it would be naive to think that there would be no move to polygamy (i can imagine all the arguments now, the usual + racist to muslims...), having thrown out religion in fact, ur attempt to define...