Well Graham, for many years certain political interests persecuted Erin Pizzey because she did not support their biased dogma.

As a previous poster once said, when men try to explore counter agruements to feminist propaganda they are labelled as being mysogynists.

Similar threats have been made against researchers who do not conduct research that supports feminist dogma.

Hope this site keeps going and all the best.

Yes Graham, hang in there, don't let the bastards grind you down, keep up the good work, and keep us posted.

Email to Storer, cc Rodney Croome,

Dear Mr Storer,
I wrote a piece that Graham Young published, titled "The perfection of heterosexual marriage?" in which I directly challenged Muehlenberg's article.

In November 2010, I wrote "Reclaiming marriage from the great big Christian hijack" in which I challenged opposition to gay marriage

I am a supporter of gay marriage for those who want it. I'm not gay. I am one of the mainstream advocates who have lobbied to bring this issue into public consciousness.

While the views of many commenters on all three articles are far from my own, and while I find many of them offensive and discriminatory, I am appalled that you and others have taken actions against Opinion On Line that have resulted in the pulling of the advertising that is it's life blood, and thus bringing about the very real possibility of it's closure.

As well, in the comments sections of all three articles, any anti gay marriage and anti gay opinions are robustly and vigorously addressed and challenged, and invariably revealed for the prejudiced and ill informed comments they usually are.

This is debate. This democracy. This is free speech. This is what you are attempting to prevent.

If you imagine silencing those who dissent will eradicate that dissent, you are very much mistaken.

Better the devil you know, than the one you drive underground.

Those against gay marriage have the right to express their position. If they do not do that to your liking then it is your responsibility to challenge them, not to shut down the publication.

It is not your right to take action that will close down a journal that offers a great deal to a great number of citizens, and addresses a great many issues other than the ones specifically concerning yourselves.

I will not support a cause that uses these tactics to silence and eradicate a publication that offers so much to so many.

I do not support censorship no matter where it comes from.

This is a very slippery slope you are on.
Yours sincerely,
Jennifer Wilson.

I can think of no other site or institution that encourages fair dinkum debate better than On Line Opinion.

Come on sponsors, support free and extensive debate. There are enough propaganda forums and institutions already.

Systems such as Google's AdSense try to place advertisements on web pages which match the subject matter of web pages and the interests of the readers. Perhaps Online Opinion needs a version of this which takes into account the political views of the author, reader and the advertiser. So advertisers who only wanted to be associated with left (or right) wing articles could choose those that bias for placement of advertisements. ;-)

More on how such advertising systems work at: http://www.tomw.net.au/technology/it/adsense.shtml

Dear Graham

I sympathise and this needs to be fought but I reckon this sort of thing is happening all the time so it is no surprise. It is not always as blatant but in the end in a society where corporations rule, then corporations rule. (Mining tax debacle?)

The power exercised by these corporations is vast. They 'sponsor' the arts and various other good works but only to the extent that they are maximising company profits. That is not a cynical comment; that is the law.

The more basic issue is why do we have to rely on these sources of funds for 'good works'? Answer in part at least - we are a low taxed country.

Gavin Mooney