It is the perfect advertisement for why there should be a plebiscite on the question.  Bruce Ingrey (who wrote the column that prompted my initial letter),  Ms Altmann and many others certainly share one thing in common – if someone disagrees with their beliefs on a particular subject, then the immediate response is to call them names and to vilify them. This is why a plebiscite is needed.  A plebiscite will provide the security and secrecy that only the polling booth will offer, in an environment free from the type of intimidation that obviously appeals to these people.

Ms Altmann uses a common trick to justify her position and to bolster her sense of indignation regarding my views – selective quoting. She complains about my comment that homosexuality is not the norm; yet it is not pejorative, just a simple statement of the obvious. I made it abundantly clear that I support equality in life for all homosexuals. I simply do not support the redefining of marriage – but of course, this gets no mention nor is quoted, because to do so would weaken Ms Altmann's over developed sense of outrage that someone would dare have views that differ from hers.

The comments that seem to be most at issue were also made, not in relation to homosexuals themselves, but about the "pro homosexual lobby".  This is quite clear in my letter. To comment on the tactics used by a lobby or similar group does not necessarily indicate, either way, the position I may take in regard to the issue in question. Those comments were also part "tongue in cheek" as clearly evidenced by my statement "What's next – will it (homosexuality) be made compulsory?"

Ms Altmann also accuses me of unleashing my hatred of gays and lesbians.  I possess no such feelings and for her to draw that conclusion clearly shows she is unable to rationally discuss this topic in an objective way.  She does no good for either herself or her cause when she descends so deeply into the depths of unjustified personal abuse, vilification and venomous rhetoric. 

Ian Marr, Allansford

Editor's note: Mr Marr's original letter, October 21, was not published in the printed publication but it was published online. It remains online and can be viewed.