I'm straight, but if gay marriage were legal, I'd be tempted to marry a bloke, just to annoy Bill Muehlenberg. His obsession with gays and what he imagines they might do in the bedroom is a constant source of amusement to me.

Herr or Chairman Bill has spoken therefore it must be so.

Meanwhile why not check out this remarkable interview on sexuality and the family, and how the forms of both have changed over the centuries. Quite often to do with changes in technology and the way that technology always changes the patterns of human relationships. The modern nuclear family being essentially a product of our technological age and the culture of competitive individualism created by it -- keeping up with the Jones's

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/encounter/stories/2010/3029756.htm

Of course programs such as this are why Chairman Bill would love to abolish the ABC.

Chris Berg is not a conservative, he is a libertarian which is really a form of prolonged adolescence.

The two types are really mutually exclusive, although many such types who infest the IPA and the AEI (in the USA) like to pretend otherwise.

You know what, none of us like blanket statements, but teh fact is we cannot base our constitution on minority situations and individual circumstances. Do not be ridiculous. We have to look at the 'ideal' and consider WHY our "outdated traditions" were there in the first place. You all forget that the fabric of Australian law (and thus our free speech land that we all love) is based on these "traditions" that you all so quickly want to be rid of.

Blanket statements have been made by people on both sides of the debate. I for one, am sick of hearing that the only people opposing SSM are the old fuddy duddies who just don't like the idea of change. Oh, throw in the easy name-calling routine of 'bigot', 'prejudice', and what was the latest? Anti-semitic? Please! I tell you why I'm sick of these blanket statements. I don't fall into any of those titles, yet I oppose the legalisation of SSM.

I am female, 24, married, without children, live in metro melbourne, work with gay and straight people, am constantly around people with HIV due to where I work. So, why then, do I oppose SSM? Because my parents do? No. Because I'm married to a man and therefore think my way is the only way? No. Because I've been convinced by the media? Clearly the answer is no on this one as not many arguments AGAINST SSM even get a look-in. I oppose the change in law because I believe in marriage in its original intent. Please don't bother telling me about all the bad/failed marriages between heterosexuals. Yes, unfortuantely things go wrong. My parents nearly divorced. How this justifies SSM is beyond me.

Do I think we need to pile all homosexuals onto an isolated island so they can take their scary way of life out of my world? No.

This is about what we believe the institute of marriage to be. It started as man and woman. It must end as man and woman. That is it. Keep it simple people.

Systematic and effective dismantling agreed.

We can safely predict, taken as a whole, the negative comments will not even amount to a semblance of rebuttal of the article's central thesis. "No the leaders of the ssm movement don't speak for us" "No I know some gay people who live better lives than heterosexuals" "No gay and straight sexual relationships are essentially the same" or some variation on these.

The shameful behaviour of Californian ssm promoters is evidence of what lies behind their smokescreen. Violent words, intimidation and vandalism. Who would trust these people to successfully re engineer our society?

In their own words leaders of the ssm push reject marriage norms and want to redefine the institution to accommodate their difference but at the same time use the word 'equality' like a mantra.

Really, if people think marriage should be abolished, or feel alienated from the natural responsibilities of heterosexual sexual relationships, they should be honest and say why. It is disgusting to deprive our boys and girls and future generations of an institution we inherited and have a duty to steward justly.

This article, of necessity, only addresses one aspect of the gay ‘marriage’ debate, but it certainly provides food-for-thought. If we reduce marriage to the choice of two adults who are in a sexual relationship to have a ceremony to give legitimacy to it, then we have lost sight of the entire concept of marriage. Heterosexual relationships undoubtedly also have their flaws, but as Muehlenberg shows it is the very structure and basis of marriage which is being re-worked, not just the way in which people interact in relationships. This isn’t an isolated phenomenon and reflects the damage that has already been done by our society to the institution of marriage. Unless we guard the very concept of marriage – from heterosexual as well as homosexual redefinition – society itself is undermined. Marriage isn’t about the freedom to love whom you wish; it’s about the public union of two people in a social contract that is only consummated in an act that may produce offspring and form the basis of a family. To ignore that is to ignore our future.