You're seriously labelling Homosexuals as a "minority group"? :-s

-PB

A very vocal minority group, but a minority group nonetheless.

Not quite as vocal as they should be, perhaps.

What rights of the straight majority are being impacted by allowing homosexuals to marry?

Good point, but that is partly because they are fairly divided as well. I was speaking with my gay co-worker the other day who hates going to equality rallies because the people running them miss the point and cheapen the meaning. He said he knows quite a few gay people who feel the same way and are hesitant to go to rallies and alike.

this.....

two gay couples we know are not interested in marriage, gay marriage or having it made law, they are just happy to be able to live together in peace and happiness

Just to clarify, my gay mates want gay marriage, they just hate the rallies, because they believe they're a gimmick.

I don't understand why people are so against gay marriage. Sure I can understand some people may have religious reasons, but that should just mean they object to them being married in their Church.

I think it is disgraceful and hypocritical for some people to impose their personal/religous beliefs on other people.

How?

Because they are given by society the freedom to practice their own beliefs which they enjoy, religious or otherwise, yet are quite comfortable imposing their personal views on others.

That's not hypocrisy... They are given that freedom

I'm not for religion being shoved down people's throat and neither do i practice any religion (anymore), but I'm even more against arguments against religion and religious institutions that are not true or justified.

Many Christians for example aren't exactly excited by the secularisation of society, and so they won't want to allow gay marriage. France is a real precedent of secularisation leading to restrictions on religious freedoms.

"They won't want to allow"?

Poor choice of words.

Many Christians want gay marriage, others are more concerned about what it represents in terms of the direction society is heading.

Therefore, some Christians do not agree with gay marriage.

That's not hypocrisy... They are given that freedom

Senate Estimates has revealed that not a single overseas investor has taken up the offer of Labor’s much trumpeted “Significant Investor Visa” program in Tasmania.
Labor’s scheme was designed to attract migrant investors to Australia but despite there being some interest in other States there has been not one single application to invest in Tasmania out of the 435 applications to the 30th of April 2013.
“What this shows is that overseas investors have no faith in Tasmania’s Labor/Green Government,” Senator Abetz said today.
“This should have been a golden opportunity for Tasmania but it has been lost because overseas investors are fully aware of the risks associated with doing business under this Labor/Green Government.”
“Investors from overseas only need look at what Labor and their Green alliance partners have done to the forest industry in Tasmania.”
“Only a Coalition Government in Canberra and a Liberal Government in Hobart can restore business confidence to invest in Tasmania’s future.”
“Our recently released Grow Tasmania Discussion Paper will help attract the investment and job creation Tasmania so desperately needs,” Senator Abetz said.

They're only given that freedom because if they aren't then they kick up a stink and all hell breaks loose.

I'm with you on this issue Joffa, I'm just trying to represent an under represented opinion on this forum.

My opinion is that allowing gay marriage in Australia will not take us down the road the French went down (which I'm against). Personally I feel like the church has no obligation to marry gay couples for obvious reasons but I think for the most part, the sooner laws are passed, the sooner we all embrace this and the sooner it becomes a non-event.

That did occur to me after I wrote it. Religious organisations in Australia do a lot of good community work though, and restrictions on religious freedoms could potentially compromise that.

I really dislike this as an argument. It's the flawed mentality of "it doesn't affect me, therefore I shouldn't care", and its really irksome.

For example, I don't particularly care for strip clubs, and have no desire to enter one... BUT, I'm a strong believer that in a free & secular society that I should be able to make that choice for myself as a grown man.

Just the same as your gay friends, it's great that they can be happy living defacto by choice, but there are a whole lot of other couples out there that don't have the option of making that choice. Giving the choice to a group of people doesn't take that choice away from anyone, it just provides it to a broader base.

WHY????

you seem to get so worked up about this topic Matt.....

just because some people aren't interested doesn't lessen their opinion, some people accept life as it is and for what it is.......

everything is a balance for someone to gain/receive something someone has to lose/relinquish something.....ying and yang....

That did occur to me after I wrote it. Religious organisations in Australia do a lot of good community work though, and restrictions on religious freedoms could potentially compromise that.

Thupercoach is right. Why should we spend tens of millions of dollars on a referendum when all we need is a handful of politicians to pull their fingers out.

This sounds suspiciously like blackmail...