>>>Homosexuals can avail themselves of civil "marriage" at the moment, giving all the rights and benefits of heterosexual marriage.<<<

I don't understand your argument here. Are you opposed to the use of word "marriage?" to describe civil unions?


>>That is not enough for the activists, who want Christian marriage re-defined to accommodate what most Christians see as a perversion.<<<

Most Christans, for now, maybe but that is changing especially with the Pope and the leaders of many more progressive denominations preaching tolerance and acceptance.

>>>Are you trying to say that Christians or anyone else for that matter have no right to oppose legislation which seeks to legitimise behaviour associated with huge rates of sexually transmitted disease on one hand and contradicts the teachings of the Christian rule book on the other........you are an ideologue of the worst type.<<<

I think you have a punctuation problem here. But I agree if there are people telling churches what to believe that is wrong, But the flip side is that churches have no business telling monogamous gay couples living as a family that they are not married. I also believe that you are on very shaky ground in implying that Gays living in monogamous, state sanctioned, unions increase the spread of AIDs. Next to celibacy is obviously the most effective way to prevent any STD.