What is needed is the facts about marriage to be publicised.

Within marriage, there are two people who can pool resources, and also assist each other.

The life expectancy of a marriage is far greater than de facto relationships, allowing for a much better chance for the children.

Marriage decreases the rates of child poverty, child homelessness, improves children's health and education.

These basic facts are not being publicised, and the rates of de facto relationships have grown to such extent in some countries, it is now destabilising the whole country.

Hommosexual marriage may be necessary to decrease the rates of STDs, but of course children born through IVF is a feminist abominatiom.

As a compromise, accept homosexual marriage, and elliminate IVF.

vanna wrote "children born through IVF is a feminist abominatiom".

Try to put yourself in the shoes of a heterosexual married couple who have been, and medical advice is will be unable to, procreate naturally. Accept the emptiness of childlessness or participlate in an abomination? Yes, adoption is an option, but..........

And yes, the Catholic Church says IVF is an abomination, although "perhaps less reprehensible" if the IVF involves only the husband and wife, but a good friend of Bill Muehlenberg's, blessed with children, told me that he could not imagine what he would feel if denied that blessing, and could not be 100% certain he would not have used IVF.

The blond kid's have generally been the only one's allowed to buy an ice cream at the local store. Some time back some brunette kid started saying why can't we get ice cream's as well (but don't let the ranga's get ice cream). A bunch of blonds got together and got the then mayor to make an ordinance that "Only blond kid's can buy ice creams".

The new mayor liked brunette's more than the old mayor but decided that they still couldn't buy ice creams.

The brunette kid's kept trying to get permission to buy ice creams so the blond kid's got together again to celebrate how nice ice creams are and tell each other what a bunch of bullies those brunette's were for asking to buy ice creams.

After all the blond kid's ice creams would all be ruined if brunette's could have ice cream as well.

R0bert

Interesting post and I certainly agree with the comments about the media. A more self-serving, generally incompetent bunch is hard to imagine.

However, I dislike the inference that because Bill disapproves of gay marriage, it should therefore be prohibited. There are many things we disapprove of, but that is no justification for imposing our views on everyone else.

There is no need for Bill or anyone else to change their views on marriage, but they should stop being control freaks. Marriage is a private matter between adults and nobody else's business, especially not the government's.

For those who don't like same-sex marriage, I offer a suggestion: don't have one. But the current laws that ban equal marriage are discriminatory and unjustifiable — no better than the archaic laws that once banned marriage between people of different races.

Marriage rights should be equal for who want it. The good news is that most Australian's, and even most Australian Christians according to a new Galaxy Poll http://bit.ly/ntv6uk, now support marriage equality.

The law must be changed and the ban on equal marriage lifted to reflect the views of the most Australians who cannot condone this official discrimination any longer.

It is funding... the homosexual and feminist advocates have heaps of funding - they are well paid professionals - and there are thousands of them.

But the fatherhood and families movement is run only by volunteers.
The mis-named "men's rights movement", the "pro marriage" and Christian movements are run by volunteers with perhaps some workers paid by donation. Not a taxpayers dollar is to be seen.

It's the money that has the power.

Yep, but Robert,
…what if your dog rocked up to the shop and was refused an ice cream; some situations in life should remain unchanged, for example, it is plain and obvious to all but the blind, homosexuals should be refused IVF and marriage on the simple grounds that their lot are unnatural and thus “queer”.

Vanna: your idea of a compromise (to homosexuals)is stupid!

L.B.Loveday:
Yes IVF is intended for normal heterosexual couples. Naturally!

And to other interested parties, the truth is simple, Homosexuality is not normal and should not be treated as if it were.

What a storm in a teacup - "bullying of the worst kind":

Give us a break. Talking about bullying, the government is interfering with our lives - left, right and center, they bully us into submission using their fully-armed police and jails, that is physical violence, and you are claiming that a small noisy group plus someone who gave them 2 minutes of air-time are bullies? what happened to proportions?

If you want to fix things and have justice in the area of marriage, take the government the hell out of this business. Let marriage be a completely personal and private matter, let it not be registered by the government and let the word "marriage" not appear in legislation.

Gee here comes all the hate again. Diver Dan it must be great to have all the answers and to be in a position to pass judgement on the rest of us. Tell us some more truths like how does the sun stay up in the sky, and where does it go at night?
ParttimeParent last time i looked the church had a fair bit of the worlds wealth and the ear of many governements

PS Graham, theres that rammed down our throats thing again!

Bill Muehlenberg Sir,

Apparently you have never heard of the existence of a body of knowledge that goes under the name of BIOLOGY.

One of its branches, GENETICS, would open your mind and do a lot of good to your liver.

It's a bit worrying that a difference of opinion, the exercise of one's freedom of speech, can be slagged as bullying. Freedom of speech MUST include the right to say or write things which are offensive to someone or other. How on earth it can become bullying is beyond me.

Speech or writing which incite violent action, how to make bombs, where to go to attack police, or set upon the property or person of minorities - that's another matter.

But most of us can understand the difference pretty easily.

Joe

loudmouth, agreed, I'm waiting for anyone opposed to gay marriage or gay/lesbian parenting rights to be called a "denier" or similar, that's the usual pattern in these things, to vilify those you disagree with from the left.

Personally I don't see what the big fuss is about, but I do not like the way the loud self obsessed, me me me types attack anyone who disagrees and lambasts them endlessly.

So much for free speech, yes you have a right to ask for gay marriage, parenting, but if people disagree, that's their right and they can express it without the full brunt of the ABC and others crashing down on you surely?

I saw Miranda Divine vilified for stating the obvious, that referring to traditional marriage was a male and a female, as just that, she was declared homophobic.

The usual serial hysterical exaggerators at work again .. whether they want this or that or something else, there appears to be no compromise, it's their way or open warfare.

The media groups pick a side and away we go, then it is warfare and slagging off between on one side ABC/Fairfax and News Limited, sometimes you can pick where they will fall naturally .. there is so much bias on both sides of the media, and it is now a two sided media we have.

The rational News Limited, and the irrational save the world eco overly progressive lefties of the ABC and Fairfax .. that's the common perception.

Imagine if we didn't have News Limited, dear god what a mess we would have with no rational or conservative voice at all.

If homosexuality is such a positive lifestyle why does the evidence show the opposite?
For quite sometime now, we have been bombarded with messages telling us that homosexuality is just another lifestyle; equally as valid as any other in our society. Any opposition to this view, especially in public, is generally met with hostility, with the “offender” being branded as judgemental, homophobic or an extreme right wing fundamentalist.
No one is allowed to raise questions, such as:
 Why are homosexuals not permitted to give blood through the
Red Cross?
 Why do homosexuals have the highest incidence of HIV
in Australia?
 Why do homosexuals have a high incidence of anal damage
and anal reconstructions?
 Why do homosexuals have a high incidence of anal cancers?
The reality is many people have been lulled into believing the lie that the homosexual lifestyle is okay and that homosexual marriage has to be legalised.

The SMH and ABC are performing true to form -- promoting their radical agendas, but censoring out traditional views and values.

Re Vanna's comment, "Hommosexual marriage may be necessary to decrease the rates of STDs...", is she expecting us to believe that homosexuals would become less promiscuous if they signed up for so-called same-sex marriage?

Secondly, has she forgotten that homosexuals were responsible originally for spreading a fatal STD that is now known as HIV?

Dear Simon,
So now polls decide what should be lawful?

And polls are accurate barometers of public sentiment (given how Julia Gillard's popularity has waxed and waned within a week of polling, with no new policy to explain the change)?

No, you are mistaken if you think that most Australian Christians are in agreement with the case FOR gay marriage.

Marriage is - and should remain - defined in law as the lifelong union of a man and a woman.

You are entitled to your opinion but don't purport to know what Christians are thinking.

Please persevere with the following analogy:
I have always been an avid fan of the Olympic Games. Indeed for much of my life I badly wanted to participate in the games. But looking at the standard definition and requirements, I could claim discrimination because the requirements exclude me. I don’t have any sporting prowess and couldn’t even run to the corner of my street, but I still badly want to participate. I am sure there are others out there who would claim “discrimination” with me. Maybe we could get together and start advocating for our rights and protest about the discriminatory requirements needed to participate.

Maybe if our little group dug our heels in, over time more people might join our little band, sympathetic to our cause and pursuit of our rights. After all we are people too and how dare that bigoted Olympic committee discriminate in this way?

Maybe in time, we would even succeed and get our own way, participating in our first Olympic Games by legal right, having all those who opposed us arrested for hate speech. But would all the millions of spectators world wide watching on TV and the internet agree that they were watching the Olympic Games? I think not.

There are other qualifications for marriage that same sex couples don’t seem to quibble with – the requirement that you can’t marry a close relative, the requirement that you can’t marry someone who is already married, that you can’t marry someone who is too young. How long before these aspects of the definition of marriage are being challenged?

Same sex lobbyists argue that the definition of marriage is open to change. By this reasoning, their own definition of marriage will change to become something different in the future. What if any future push for change comes from pedophiles, also arguing that the definition of marriage is changing? Or maybe the next push will come from the bestiality lobby group. If the definition of marriage is ever changing, then no one would ever have the right to claim that their definition is the correct one

To DavidL and others who seem to dislike rules of any kind, remember that laws are there to protect people. So the laws surrounding marriage protect children by providing the best environment for them to be raised - with a father and mother. Removing those laws and allowing the re-definition of marriage might serve the selfish interests of some, but it doesn't serve the interests of the children. There are plenty of studies showing that the best place for a child to be raised is with their biological parents.

So many feeble excuses.
- Some people can't tell the difference between dogs and human being's. Amazing how often the topic of dog's comes up in these discussions.
- Marriage is a spectator sport, observers won't enjoy it as much if some rules which don't actually impact on peoples ability to have a loving relationship are not enforced.
- Marriage is just about the protection of children (how about we arbitarily disolve the marriages of all hetro marriages where there is no children of that marriage living in the home).
- Hetro marriages will somehow go bad if other consenting adults are allowed to marry.

Pathetic excuses to try and continue the marginalisation of people with different sexuality to your own.

Perhaps a better idea to work out why hetrosexual marriage has gone so wrong for so many (including a lot of religious fundies) and spend a little less angst on denying access to other consenting adults.

Maybe some could spend quite a lot less time thinking about gay sex (and or bestiality) and put more effort into getting your own house in order.

R0bert

Raycom states 'Secondly, has she forgotten that homosexuals were responsible originally for spreading a fatal STD that is now known as HIV?'

Sorry but HIV (and its resultant mutation into AIDS) was not originally the responsibility of the gay community.

HIV was a human developed (although unintended) virus mutation when the Polio Vaccine was developed and tested in Southern Africa in the late 1940s and 1950s. Blood and tissue was derived from Resces monkeys, unknowingly containing molecular material that mutated into the HIV virus when infused with other human genetic materials and synthetic materials and then tested on human recipients of the early Polio vaccine.

HIV was spread hetrosexually originally (and still is) but due to transmission characteristics its rampant spread emerged in the Gay community and still is.

Perhaps Raycom should limit his/her comments around facts.

for the record I am happily married hetrosexual man

"Some people can't tell the difference between dogs and human being's"

But why shouldn't I be able to marry my dog?

Surely such a marriage would not harm any children/puppies who may grow up with a father and a mother!

In fact, one ingredient that is so important in a child's development is... grandparents! Shall we also ban the marriage of orphans?

(and again for the record, I do not support the state sanctioning homosexual marriage - I want the government to step right out of the whole area of marriage, and out of many other areas of life as well)

Marriage is between a Man and a Woman - all the other distorted dressed up abominations are what we as normal hetrosexual people expect from individuals who strive to disrupt this wonderful bond that is natural and not perverted. Having just celebrated 28 years of marriage, it is without doubt my own oppinion, that so called same sex unions are wrong and just because they badger anyone who stands up to them, doesn't make it right. It used to be a democracy where individulas had a say and the majority carried - these self indulgent individuals are perverting democracy and our very way of life by railroading our law makers into accepting their self centred ambitions. Well done anyone who stands for REAL Marriage between a MAN and a WOMAN.

MartinS
You attack Simon for claiming to know what Christians think. He at least quotes evidence. You don't. I'm a [straight, married] Christian and I support gay marriage, as do many of the Christians I have discussed the issue with.

And you're right, polls alone don't determine what should be lawful. That’s especially true when we're dealing with minority rights that can too easily be swamped by majoritarianism. That’s why Muehlenberg’s argument that “homosexual activists never like to abide by the will of the people” is without substance.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12485#215694

Vanna, i hear what you are saying there, but that is a thin end of the wedge position. IVF is not so much of a problem as is its easy availability "on medicare" at taxpayers expence.

many heterosexual couples are infertile today simply because the feMANazis encouraged them to put having children off, until it was too late.

the clock starts ticking at age 27 & the stats get exponentially worse for all types of negative outcomes after that, so by age 33 natural conception is almost miraculous.

it may not be PC to say this but some human females have completly finished puberty at age 12, every day after that their reproductive organs & eggs are getting older.

Also for males each day after puberty your sperm is getting older, is being exposed to any toxins that may be in the environment or workplace around you, are being exposed to genetic damage.

several hundred years ago British law dictated that all inheritance must go to the first born son. Could one of the reasons for this have simply been the likelyhood that children born earlier in the marriage are less likely to be deformed or abnormal?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12485#215702

RObert, http://www.rense.com/general32/americ.htm all of this is worth a look robert, but pay particular attention to #20 to #28.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12485#215708

DavidL, exactly why should GLBT people shove their lifestyle on others? expect them to change to suit their lifestyle choices?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12485#215710

Simon Butler, another twisted survey in which GLBT people & their PFLAG fellow travellers are questioned to give a result which is out of step with what 83% of the population want.

partTimeParent, spot on.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12485#215712

diver dan, true, http://www.rense.com/general32/americ.htm have a good look at all of it but #26 in particular.

Dear Floody,

Congratulations for your 28th wedding anniversary and also for demonstrating so clearly why democracy is wrong.

Surely if a majority of citizens were to attack YOUR way of life, for example by railroading law makers to outlaw communion and to force priests to testify in court of what they heard in confession, then you wouldn't be as happy about democracy either!

The majority of the population is being bullied by the Marksist elite to change our culture and heritage and believe a biological lie. They use discrimination as a weapon to badger and bully us to believe we are guilty when we uphold social norms.

Marriage exists in an ordered society and it is the Governments responsibility to make sure children are cared for. Some here advocate anarchy and free love producing offspring; a law of the jungle. "Whatever feels good" ignore the children, as many pseudo males in our society are doing. Marriage is a commitment to the mother of the child that the father will provide love and security to her and the children.

Marriage can only be between a man and a woman as the term suggests, the coming together of two different substances to produce an independent and self sufficient being. This can only happen as male sperm unites with the female ovum to produce another human in their likeness. The vagina and womb have no other design or evolved purpose other than to accommodate the male penis and produce children and the mother by design is the primary nurturer having mammary to give succor to their children. The term marriage can never be applied to the exclusive practice of anal sex, because no substance is fertile from the bowel to produce offspring in their likeness. The Marriage Ceremony is the public declaration that this man and this woman have agreed to engage in sex with the possibility of producing children, and it is for this purpose only that records must be kept by the State of births, marriages and deaths. Homosexual partners of their relationship can never, I say never naturally produce children from their union. The Child has the right and need to relate to both their maternal and paternal parents. We do not need a social experiment on the lives of children, of a fatherless or motherless generation.

Sometimes I think I find Muehlenberg's logic even more objectionable than his attitudes. I'm going to try something novel here - I'm going to keep my post focused entirely on the *substance* of the article.

First thing - Muehlenberg says 'around 1000' then later specifically states that 1000 people attended. Then he gets annoyed when the media says several hundred.

It would be inaccurate to say 'thousands' because by Muehlenberg's own admission, there was either 1000 or about 1000. The word 'several' is taken from the number 'seven' and usually, plus or minus two. So several hundred could be anywhere from about 500 to 900. Given that there doesn't seem to be an exact number, this seems like a reasonable approximation.

He states: "the homosexual activists never like to abide by the will of the people".

You might be interested in this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia

Scroll down to the part about public opinion polls. Apparently, on all of those polls, more than half of the people favour same sex unions.

Does this mean you're going to stop protesting and abide by the "will of the people?"

Actually, I respect your right to protest. Your double standards and hypocrisy I find somewhat objectionable. Apparently when it agrees with you it's the will of the people and they should shut up, but otherwise you keep on protesting.

"She rightly pointed out how these very small but noisy groups are acting like school yard bullies. "

See my point above, about hypocrisy. Also, nobody is forcing you to marry a gay person. Thus, there is no bullying. You have the right to do as you wish. Please grant others the same.

Cont'd.

Actually, I'm not vehemently in favour of same sex marriage. As a religious cultural ceremony, marriage has indeed been between a man and a woman and I see no reason to stir up a hornets nest in relation to the religious groups. Let them have their marriage. To take that away from them is indeed unfair.

However, when it comes to taxes, rights and all government related laws, the government has no right to interfere in the lives of couples, regardless of gender. They deserve all the identical legal status of heterosexual married couples if they so desire. Thus, I approve of civil unions - in effect, gay marriage in all but name.

Homosexuals who claim that it's about the 'principle' and it simply must be a marriage in name as well, are indeed attempting to socially reorient the conservative belts in society and are overreaching. If they're not satisfied with civil unions, then they instantly lose my sympathy and support - they're trying to rob a religious group of their own rights (rites in this case perhaps?) and they want to eliminate these people and their views from society altogether. What's more, they're sabotaging the movement for civil unions by asking for too much. This push is what is generating the backlash from conservatives who see marriage as being under threat.

Christians who refuse to countenance civil unions are interfering in the legal rights of others. They have absolutely no business doing so. Their arguments are weak, pathetic and it goes without saying that they lack logic - people aren't dogs, the world won't end if gay people shack up and ultimately it's none of your business.

The actual word "marriage" is not a specifically or exclusively religious word or term. At present all marriages are registered with the state, whether they are civil ceremonies or religious.

I see no reason for government interference in dictating the sexes of couples who wish to marry. Where some religions object, they do not have to permit same sex couples marriage rights (or rites) in their place of worship.

The only people who are forcing their beliefs on others are those who have persuaded the current and past governments to deny same sex marriage. This is clearly an infringement and discriminatory practice against adults. Just as it was when people of different skin colour were forbidden from marrying.

Hey Formersnag, you quote 'Also for males each day after puberty your sperm is getting older, is being exposed to any toxins that may be in the environment or workplace around you, are being exposed to genetic damage'

I think you need to go back to school and learn some really, really basic biology. I have read some outlandish statements on OLO but this one takes the cake.

Get some real facts and then attempt to input at least a little reality in all the rubbish you spew out.......great for a laugh from my point of view, my 35 year old sperm (hummmpff) must be getting tired!

Bill Muehlenberg is right. The bias and hetrophobia of the ABC is simply indescribable and the Fairfax press are close behind. Many of my friends in the Fatherhood and men’s movement call the Sydney Morning Herald the Sydney Morning Homosexual or the Sydney Morning Feminist depending of course on which story is on the front page. The Fairfax press universally called the National Marriage Day Rally Anti Marriage Day Rally. Immediately you have a value judgement that we are against something. WE are not against anybody. 1.6&% of the population is against marriage and wants to remake it in their own image and thus destroy it on the spurious basis of equality. Equality with what and who? You have to compare Apples with Apples. You cannot compare apples with oranges.

Of course anyone who dares to disagree is a denier. Sorry “homophobic”. Who is disagreeing with who? On another point the biased media elites cannot even agree with themselves and make idiots of themselves in the process. The ABC said there was 200 people at the rally. The Canberra Times who have more than once worn their hetrophbia on their sleeve said there was more than 800. The Sydney Morning Herald who seem to have a passionate hatred for all things about marriage and family (It shows in their shocking circulation downgrade) said there was 1100. The fact the ABC got it so wrong shows how obviously they have been pushing there hetrophobic position which is Left of Ayatollah Khomeini.

L.B.Loveday, Diver Dan etc.

Homosexual marriage and homosexual pair bonding is now attached to IVF (Eg Penny Wong and Sophie Allouache).

IVF is a completely unnecessary, expensive, evasive procedure that has a huge number of moral and ethical questions attached.

To involved to go into here, but if you investigate IVF, then the future of IVF is very much heading towards cloning babies and also producing genetically engineered babies (or designer babies).

Various feminists have supported IVF in the past because a woman could become pregnant without sex with a man, and the father of the child could also be dispensed with before the child was even born.

However, the future of IVF is to produce a zygote cell without a male sperm cell, and even without a female ovum cell.

In essence, the child is cloned from somatic or body cells, and that is an abomination of nature.

Parents can always adopt children, and there are millions of children seeking adoption, and need adoption.

There are moral issues regards homosexual marriage, but these pale in significance compared to the moral issues surrounding IVF.

To reject homosexual marriage on moral grounds, but still accept or even encourage IVF is simply irrational in the extreme.

hetrophobia - so bad.

"Many of my friends in *the Fatherhood and men’s movement* call the Sydney Morning Herald the "Sydney Morning Homosexual" or the "Sydney Morning Feminist" depending of course on which story is on the front page."
Posted by Warwick Marsh, Thursday, 18 August 2011 5:17:29 PM

the Fatherhood and men’s movement - so good.

Newspapers not counting accurately - so bad. So very very bad. Naughty.

vanna wrote "Parents can always adopt children, and there are millions of children seeking adoption, and need adoption".

I mentioned adoption, but added ................., and included in the dots is the fact that there are very, very few children available for adoption in Australia due the 10s of thousands of children that are cruelly aborted every year, and to adopt a child from overseas is not only a difficult and often lengthy procedure (so can be the natural "making" of a child), but very costly, indeed out of the reach of many, likely most.

The fact of 'marriage' between two humans is seen in numerous ways in different countries and religions around the world. Both Christian and homophobic views of the ritual are, globally, in the minority. Somehow, the vitriolic rage of a few comments speaks more of their writers' insecurity than any 'sin' or transgression on the part of persons who are homosexual.
One of the best comments upon gay marriage comes from a New Yorker cartoon. A couple together, she reading the paper, he watching television. Woman..."I see they're making gay marriage legal." Man..."Good God, haven't they suffered enough?"

carol83,
Your common association of terms like "homophobic views", "vitriolic rage" are suposed to foster guilt in those who uphold the biological fact that two persons of the same sex cannot produce children. Therefore same gender persons are not in any biological sense married.

Your attitude demonstrates your own emotive bullying opinion and is not factual, and is intended to beat persons into submission as guilty. Learn to debate facts!

Kenny http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12485#215719

"imeParent last time i looked the church had a fair bit of the worlds wealth and the ear of many governements" Sadly, the christian chrches are dying... it is obvious that you haven't walked into one recently or you would know. The average age of anglican churchgoers is 62... post retirement, ready for the grave.

The only money they have left after the financial crisis is what the dying give them in their wills... and that is not a sustainable suource of funds.

Despite about two thousand years of generally doing good and making the world better (despite some obvious and extreamly well-publicised exceptions). The western world is a worse place for the colapse of christianity adn the rise of the alternative religions...

The alternative religions - the growth religions are islam, feminism, socialism, welfareis, greenieism... and these have killed many more people in 100 years than christianty has killed in 2000.

Socialism alone - think Stalin and his purges, Mao and the cultural revolution, Pol Pot and the killing fields... Greenies killed many paople - for example the Helensburgh fire tragedy 1998 - because the anti-pollution greenies made hazard-reduction burning impossible

Dear Philo,

"Marriage exists in an ordered society and it is the Governments responsibility to make sure children are cared for."

Well, you need to decide: if marriage is merely a societal thing, then there is nothing sacred about it!

As for governments, I am truly surprised how a religious person like yourself can so easily entrust the welfare of his/her children in the hands of a secular establishment, which is what the government is.

"Some here advocate anarchy and free love producing offspring;"

Note that I only advocate the removal of the government from our life. I said nothing for or against producing offspring in free love.

"Marriage is a commitment to the mother of the child that the father will provide love and security to her and the children."

I am not attempting to define 'marriage', not even trying to, but here you are contradicting yourself: if marriage is between two people (a father and a mother), then it pre-exists society and has nothing to do with whether society at large is ordered or otherwise.

You are trying to glorify a secular institution, making a false assumption as if it upholds our culture and heritage, something it has not done in decades, where in reality it has long been infested with marxists. Governments of today are very unlike the 19th century, they are hostile to religion. There is nothing uplifting in government-sanctioned marriage, which turned instead into a business (and also a way to suppress churches and bring them into line).

If you continue supporting the state, naively believing that it has anything to do with religion, you may find yourself shattered when that state which you cherish betrays you, turns out against you and ban religion.

Oh honestly. This is might get me banned (never happened before on the internet), but I might as well live dangerously.
What a silly article. Here we have someone who is claiming being bullied because they can't crack the media. Welcome to world, mate. It's no easier for left wing-activists to grab attention for their causes from the press, and quite frankly the views of a bunch of dinosaurs having a last roar at Parliament house isn't exactly earth shaking stuff. At least the left wing don't claim they are being bullied when they do get it though. There is just more interesting stuff out there than a right wing christian faction having a get together. A English Royal having a wart removed for instance.

My own view on gay marriage - well why not for same sex couples. I had a full church wedding, trumpet, choir, and all. But if two other people fall in love and also want to attempt the life-long commitment, how does that diminish my own marriage? In fact it strengths it, as other people vote for the institution. I have nothing to indicate that these people who also want to get married are somehow less intelligent or have a moral compass that is anymore awry than mine, so I'd have to say that they an equal right to enter into the same legal contract that I entered into.

Graham Young has recently had a moan in the media about OOL being shunned somewhat by the left and being incited to do it by people such as Clive Hamilton. It's probably more a case that the left has better things to do, (like educate the consumer about where products are sourced from for example) rather than waste time on debating people who have made some more extreme comments on this site about gay marriage and IVF, than the left following the party line. I'm all for free speech. But I'm also for not time wasting so, with that I'll end and do something more useful. cheers.

L.B.Loveday
Read between the lines, the more the demand for IVF, the closer human cloning becomes.

http://www.globalchange.com/clonech.htm

Also, the more the demand for adoption, the easier it is to adopt.

Thats the choice.

1 retweet and 7 'Likes'.

Billy boy, you're not making it out here in the ether, are you?

Maybe you could apply to your well funded friends at the ACL for some dosh to help you through the day. A bloke like Sir Jimmy Wallace surely can't come cheap. They'd be flush.

Carol83, I loved your joke...lol !

Philo <"Your common association of terms like "homophobic views", "vitriolic rage" are suposed to foster guilt in those who uphold the biological fact that two persons of the same sex cannot produce children. Therefore same gender persons are not in any biological sense married."

So Philo, if we follow your twisted logic, all those infertile heterosexual couples out there shouldn't be married?
All those older couples past their child-bearing years shouldn't be married?

Our so-called Christian based society allows murderers, convicted criminals of all sorts, and even known child molesters to get married and bring children into their marriage, with hardly a second thought by these anti-gay marriage people.

Why is that do you think?

I would hazard a guess that the main problem is misguided religious objections, and not a worry for the children of gay parents.

I've just browsed through the comments already posted and note that many of them are negative to heterosexual marriage (and the author of the article).

I also noted that quite a number of the posts were by the same person - one person had posted 3 times, another 4 times, etc. Mostly negative.

This is so typical of a vocal minority. They make a lot of noise to try to show they are a majority when it is a well-known truth that the majority is usually "silent".

I won't be making another post after this. But for the record, I believe that marriage should only be heterosexual, because that is what is normal, for propagation of the human race and for the raising of children with a mother and father.

Thanks, Bill, for your worthwhile and genuine comments which I fully agree with (along with the "silent majority").

There is no bill threatening "equal marriage".

Marriage is between one man and one woman, freely entered into for life. No homosexual relationship, and no polyamourous relationship can be that - in its attempt to emulate or replace marriage, it must break the very structure of what marriage is.

Whatever form homosexual, polyamourous or other relationships take, marriage they are not.

Well done, Bill! Keep up the good fight!

Vanna wrote: "Read between the lines ......"

I am extremely well read and don't need directions to particular sites; maybe vanna should stop reading between the lines and read literally.

I have seen the slipperly-slope of abortion and other laws.

I responded to her all-embracing claim "children born through IVF is a feminist abominatiom", with the example of the heart-break of a hetero-sexual married couple who cannot naturally conceive, and I cannot see how they could view their use of their eggs and sperm via IVF as an abomination, although the Catholic Church does.

In my opinion no child should be deliberately "produced" by IVF (or naturally) without a father and mother, known to the child and ready to undertake parental duties. So no IVF for homosexuals.

As soon as someone is pro-heteros or anti-homos, out goes the cry "homophobic", but I'm anti-theft and murder - does that make me crimephobic?

"but I'm anti-theft and murder - does that make me crimephobic"

But if you happily kill bug's in your garden and decide that your neighbours who do the same thing (maybe a different variety of bug) should not be allowed to it does suggest that you have a problem.

Murder and theft both do real harm to others, gay and lesbian couples having the same legal rights in a relationship to those enjoyed (or not) by hetrosexual couples does no harm to anybody else.

All of the claimed harm to children of growing up without one parent of each gender is mirrored by very regular circumstances in hetrosexual marriages but without nearly the level of concern. Mum's have died in childbirth, from disease etc throughout hustory, dad's have died in workplace accidents, in war's or had job's that have kept them away from home for moths or sometimes years at a time.

Divorce is more common now but it's been with us for a long time and often with good reason.

Homophobic may not be a good word to describe the obsessive desire to control the sexual aspects of the lives of others. Can you suggest a more appropriate word for it?

Spousal relationship's can be difficult enough and seem to be for enough people regardless of their sexual orientation that this focus on denigrating homosexuals and pretending that homosexual relationship's somehow take something away from hotrosexual one's seems like an absolute farce.

BTW if you check vanna's posting history it seem's very unlikely that vanna is a "she".

R0bert

L.B.Loveday

IVF is indeed a slippery slope, and it is also likely that heterosexual couples seeking a child through IVF will become a minority of the "clients" of IVF clinics in the future.

There are already single women undergoing IVF to become a single mother, and I tend to think that the baby is similar to a living toy for such people.

As well, the child will likely spend most of its time in a taxpayer funded day care center.

Homosexual marriage will only affect a few, but the long term issues of IVF are more than most can reconcile or want to think about.

Robert

Do you ever feel you are wasting your time here?

Thought you'd enjoy the following video.

Warning to the easily confused, the following video is chock full of irony.

http://www.youtube.com/user/DarkMatter2525#p/u/1/tpz8PMcRJSY

suzeonline,
Your short-sighted logic ignores the fact that a man and a woman engage in sex in the natural and biological designed (evolved) way. Marriage was originally designed for the young bride and groom to be committed to each other for life. Until they are married there is no way of determining their fertility, and even fertile couples sometimes have problems conceiving. So the claim that infertile and aged couples in my view should not be married is an exception.

You use guilt by association - no where does Christ sanction murder, impure sexual acts or child molecters as Christian. These persons are not Christian nor are part of His kingdom people. As Christ said, "nothing impure or deceitful will enter in to Christ's kingdom."

God established principles that children never be deliberately brought up fatherless or motherless as the gay lobby desire. Marriage was established for family its security and provision. Human behaviour cannot in every case be accepted and sanctioned because it happens by default.

What better way to 'defend' marriage than include SSM in the mix. Marriage is about commitment and love it is not an 'attack' on that essential purpose.

It is just a legal term and legal terms can be amended at any time through an Act of Parliament. Many Christian SS couples also desire to be married in the 'sight of God', but I guess that is a matter for the various denominations.

'Normal' only refers to what is usual or most common. It does not mean that those who fall out of the median/medium range should be punished for being different to that 'norm'. If somebody is homosexual it means it is occuring in 'nature' for reasons unknown. Nature is rarely uniform and having family members who are gay I have seen that it is not a 'choice' for them but just who they are as much as being blonde or brunette.

Are we that uncivilised that we cannot accept people in all their shapes and sizes.

It is not all doom and gloom. As a society I think we are becoming more moral in many ways than in previous years. We are no longer as racist or in fear of foreigners (for the most part); homosexuals no longer have to hide in the closet for fear of censure or worse beatings. While there are a few who would dictate to others how they should live their lives there is hope for a fairer and more 'loving' world to come.

Surely the first call should be a 'do no harm' test and I cannot see how SSM is going to affect in any way those who believe marriage to be an exclusive club between a man and a woman.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12485#215845

Pelican, i accept that you are an honest decent person who is trying to be open to debate & caring, but the true nature or title of this article should be "what caused the riots & the great fire of Sydney 2020".

Marriage is not & never has been about love. it is about committment to raising happy, healthy children in the safest possible environment, namely lifetime, heterosexual marriage. Anything less is child abuse & neglect.

Marriage is NOT just a "legal term" it is also a religious term. There is no reigion in the world other than communism which allows SSM.

There are NO GLBT christians, only "false prophets" & devil worshipping communists.

Why should more than 98% of the population have to change or have their civil rights assaulted so that less than 2% of the population, who are mentally ill be allowed to delude themselves &/or be encouraged to stay crazy.

it is indeed "uncivilised" to encourage the sexual abuse of children, so as to manufacture DEvolution of our society. there is also a great difference between tolerating or not abusing perverse minorities & hero worshipping abnormalities. the communists are in the business of creating mediocrity & failure.

http://www.rense.com/general32/americ.htm please, do yourself a favour, read the whole thing word for word several times but pay particular attention to #26. Throughout the entire history of the USSR GLBT lifestyle was reppressed but encouraged in the west? why do you think the closet communists did that?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/the-covert-comrades-in-the-alp/story-e6frg6zo-1225887087909 closet communism was rife in the land of OZ, as well as everywhere else.

We have on all social indicators been getting LESS moral, ethical since the mid 1960's.

A loving, moral society dispences "tough love" when it is needed, rather than encouraging dysfunctionality, hopelessness, drug & welfare dependency.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvTGYiwXKZ0&feature=share parental alienation is real, feMANazis have been whinging about it for years, ever since some men got "custody" of their children. all children have the RIGHT to both biological parents. there is no more "alienated" child than one raised by GLBT people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24sjYlydAuw&feature=share here is the base psychology involved, self delusion.

I feel that what is happening - is that we
are increasingly tolerating a variety of
alternative marriage and family styles. The
reasons are linked, primarily, to the nature of
our society as a post-industrial society.

A hallmark of such a society is its economic and
cultural diversity, combined with a highly
developed sense of individualism. In this
environment, people tend to make decisions about
marriage, divorce, abortion, child-rearing, and
the like in terms of what they, personally, want -
rather than in terms of traditional moralities,
obligations to kin, or the other impersonal
pressures that previous generations unquestioningly
accepted. Pursuing their own vision of self-fulfillment,
or responding to the social and economic predicament
in which they find themsleves, many people are modifying
the family/marriage system to suit their individual needs.

Significantly, enough, some of the variant marriage and
family patterns are becoming recognised, formally or
informally, by such official agencies as the Bureau of
the Census, the state and federal courts, the Internal
Revenue Service, and government welfare departments.

It will inevitably therefore come to pass that our society
will move - to a situation in which things like same-sex
marriage will simply come to be taken for granted. Most
Australians are in favour of it. So its not a question of
if, but simply - when.

As I've stated in the past - each society views its own
patterns of marriage, family, and kinship, as self-evidently
right and proper, and usually as God-given as well,

Much of the current concern about the fate of the modern marriage
and family stems from this kind of ethnocentrism. If people
assume that there is only one "right" marriage/family form,
then naturally any change will be interpreted as heralding the
doom of the whole institution.

It is important therefore, to recognize that there is an
immense range in marriage, family, and kinship patterns.
That each of these patterns may be, at least in their own
context, perfectly viable, and above all, that marriage,
family, like any other social institution, must inevitably
change through time, in our own society as in all others.

Ammonite, I did enjoy that link thanks.

Sometimes it all seems like a waste of time but remember that it's not the extremists who might be open to thinking differently. Rather the decent people who've might read but not comment. The ones who've been fed a steady died of one sided views from the pulpit or their social circles but who do try to hold honest and credible views. Sometimes all that takes is another perspective to consider. Some can change and do change.

Pelican and Lexi well said.

R0bert

Lexi,
All very well, but who has to pay for it.

I think you will find that many of these so-called marriage types are not economicly sustainable, so someone else has to pay for them.

When economies collapse or go into recession, only 1 marriage type is sustainable enough to produce enough children to keep society functioning.

That marriage type is not homosexual marriage, nor is it the feminist ideal of children born through a series of de facto relationships.

"only 1 marriage type is sustainable enough to produce enough children to keep society functioning"

vanna how is not allowing homosexual people to marry going to produce more children?

Are you thinking that if homosexual people can't marry others of their own gender that they will just go for a hetrosexual marriage and all will be happy homes?

If enough social pressure is placed on homosexual people some will enter into hetrosexual marriages but I think that's very destructive for all involved. Would you really want a partner who had never found you sexually attractive but married you because of social pressure and or legal restrictions?

Can you imagine how unpleasant a relationship that would be for both over the long term?

R0bert

Robert,
Homosexuals could get married, but if they want the public to fund them to have children through IVF, then they should forget it, because the more demand for IVF, the greater the likelihood of designer babies and also cloned babies being produced by the IVF industry.

There are very, very few ethics associated with the IVF industry.

It is an industry likely to try anything, with a past record of deceit and using people (and no wonder various feminists have supported it so much).

The best way out of the situation is to ban IVF entirely, for homosexuals, heterosexuals and anyone else.

If homosexual persons are capable of fertile sperm and ovum, there is a natural way for them to have children. Let them marry the opposite gender and raise a family as many have over hundreds of centuries. Evolution or design has not given them infertility so they are very capable of normal heterosexual marriage.

""there is a natural way for [homosexuals] to have children. Let them marry the opposite gender and raise a family as many have over hundreds of centuries.""
@ Philo,

Wow. You propose perpetuating falseness despite the barriers and bigotry that forced that past falseness having been removed. You propose 'false witness'.

You propose treating people like commercial commodities.

Philo would you like to be married to a lesbian? Someone who was not sexually attracted to you (or almost any other male)?

Do you really think that makes for a good life for anybody involved (kid's included)?

The world is struggling with too many people as it is, should we be then forced into SSM to reduce the number of new kid's. It's pragmatic but count me out.

There is a lot more to spousal relationship's than the ability to make babies together.

R0bert

This type of discussion inevitably comes down to crap. The believers keep coming up with scripture proving their point, and the non-believers become increasingly frustrated at the stonewalling.

It's boring, dumb and demeaning to both sides of the discussion. Time to stop and think about your listening skills.

Philo would you like to be married to a lesbian?....Hey! I know I would:).....but true to the saying, what a boring subject.

( If the way humans keep finding answers to the worlds problems, chat sites maybe the thing of the past.....but don't hold your breath:)

I thought we gave woman the right to vote:)..or was that just a smoke screen of still stone-age anger we have come except:) Even as many that put their votes against the subject matter, still the basic human female cant sleaze their way out of the manipulations their so well known for........( I love the fairness in all the above:)

LEAP

Philo is absolutely correct there is nothing at all stopping a lesbian SS "defacto" couple from co-habiting with a gay SS "defacto" couple. They could engage in ordinary heterosexual sex for the purpose of procreation, live in the same large house, duplex, unit complex or neighbouring homes.

then there is no need to burden the tax payer with IVF which is not neccessary & the children could grow up with both of their biological parents.

PS, lesbians are a bit like the differences between vegetarians & vegans. a true lesbian would not want penetrative sex with dildos &/or vibrators, if they find male sexual anatomy unattractive.

if they do find male sexual anatomy attractive then the only reasons why they find relationships with males unappealing are psychological. Men like women come in all physical shapes & sizes, as well as all sorts of mental, emotional, psychological types. if they tried a little harder, they might just find a male with a personality &/or character which is compatible with them.

feMANazism was invented by closet communists for the specific purpose spreading fear, loathing & mistrust between men & women in the west, at the height of the cold war.

How many of you fools have fallen for it & are to proud to admit you may have been duped?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U4c7Ldua2o&feature=related

Philo and Formersnag, you guys don't give a tinker's cuss about how much IVF programs cost the public! Lol !

In any case, the few people that can afford to go through the very expensive IVF programs must pay for about 90% of it themselves... many thousands of dollars. The average infertile person must have good private health cover, or have plenty of money coming from somewhere- but not the public purse.

At least get your facts right!

I have much more respect for the God-believers who come straight out and say they are against homosexual people because their holy book tells them it is an abomination, than with those that pretend they give a damn about other people's relationships, or children.

Formersnag, Philo wet al

Duplicitous conspiracy proposals, such as weird cohabitating ones, are unnecessary as are conspiracy theories, such as "feMANazism was invented by closet communists".

Most people try to live life straight-forwardly. Including homosexuals born that way.

suzeonline,
Check, I have made no mention of IVF. Ivf is for infertile couples not for giving birth to fatherless children.

Formersnag,
If Lesbians can accept giving birth to a child I see no reason for objection for them to accept a relationship with a man. Most of the effeminite guys I know make great fathers. Society has identified them and boxed them as gay pre-pubity.

Philo <"Check, I have made no mention of IVF. Ivf is for infertile couples not for giving birth to fatherless children."

What? You have mentioned IVF ad nauseam Philo! I checked!

Check your' biology books Philo. One needs sperm from a father, and an egg from a mother, to make a baby for an IVF program.
ALL IVF children must have a father, biologically.

There are actually very few couples or single parents who have successfully aquired IVF babies.

Why the big fuss?
Does the Bible say anywhere in it's fairy stories:
"Thou shalt not have an IVF baby"?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12485#215932

suzeonline, don't be ridiculous, #1, i have mentioned christianity & being one before, but being intelligent i also know the secular arguments as well.

#2, i am concerned about all wastage of taxpayers money, as you also well know.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12485#215934

McReal, don't expect me to believe you have never heard of the PC, Thought Police.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlHFj208qPs&feature=related here is a little video for both you & suzeonline, enjoy, i have mountains more evidence anytime you are unsure about closet communism.

suzeonline,
Please read my former posts. I truthfully uphold all natural biological evidence for birth. I do not pretend a lie of two fathers or two mothers like the PC, or immaculate conception.

Dear vanna,

Could you kindly supply some evidence that only one
marriage type is economically sustainable in our
society. Otherwise what you're presenting is merely
your opinion.
Whereas according to recent surveys and sociological
studies - various alternatives to traditional marriage
not only currently exist, they propsper quite well.

As a matter of fact - the great majority of gay men and
lesbian women form stable, long-lasting relationships
with a person of the same sex at some time in their lives.
And what is significant is the willingness of many courts
to grant custody of children to a gay parent.

For several years moreover, social welfare
agencies in New York and other large cities in the US have
been placing orhpaned or runaway gay teenage boys - who are
unwelcome in heterosexual foster homes - in the custody
of gay males, usually couples.

And of course as we know the rapid advances in the
availability and technology of artificial insemination:
if they so choose, lesbian women can become mothers
without having had any heterosexual relationships at all.

I'm afraid that you are somewhat out of touch with what's
happening in the real world. And you may not approve of any
of it - but frankly - what you approve of or don't approve
of doesn't matter one iota. And that's a fact!

Lexi
Have to work today (someone has to pay tax), so haven't the time to list links.

But note that 50% of children are born outside of heterosexual marriage in the UK, leading to what is thought the highest rate of child poverty in OECD countries (about 30% of children).

"And of course as we know the rapid advances in the
availability and technology of artificial insemination:
if they so choose, lesbian women can become mothers
without having had any heterosexual relationships at all." is the frightening part.

There would be less morality in IVF then in plastic surgery, and perhaps the same amount of morality in IVF as abortion clinics.

One of the reasons IVF is easier to obtain than adoption, is that IVF clinics will carry out IVF on just about anyone.

70 year old women have been given IVF, and also large numbers of women over 50, knowing full well that the baby is likely to be stillborn, or likely to be born underweight or prematuraely.

IVF clinics are also well known for treating sperm and egg donors as convenient human incubators, and they offer them minimal amounts for the sperm and eggs.

There are also IVF doctors now saying that there is money to be made in human cloning.

So the production of human babies is an industry, and humans are a commodity.

Feminists may love IVF, because the father can be elliminated before the child is even born, but IVF is an unnatural process that has no ethics or morality other than making a quick buck.

Trading in babies is as ethical as the slave trade; when homosexual men can employ surrogate mothers to have their babies for cash.

Marriage always has been between a man and a woman. There is an extensive body of research globally that confirms the value of conventional marriage to societies and children in particular. Gays use the old argument - its all 'behind closed doors'. Then they want Ernie and Bert to get married in front of our toddlers! What is it about marriage that homosexuals want that they can't already have if left to their own devices?
Genetics? I'd love to hear how the biological dead end of homosexuality ever made it through millions of years of evolution. And please tell me more about the health benefits of this supposedly normal lifestyle choice. I'm just not convinced. Any health professionals out there?

suzeonline, Lexi, McReal & Pelican etc, i see none of you have dared to comment on this thread,

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12487#215752

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12487#215928

in which one of your colleagues successfully proved "beyond reasonable doubt" that fatherlessness & non traditional relationships is what caused the recent riots in Britain.

Why are fauxMANistas & the loony left completely incapable of ever admitting they may have been wrong?

StraightTalk
Hardly anybody wants Bert and Ernie to get married - they are virtually asexual puppets, FFS.

Someone commented somewhere recently there is a slight correlation in some family lines between high female fecundity and homosexuality.

Robert,

Please go back to school for a day, a year or a lifetime, however long it takes, and learn the correct use of the apostrophe. It does not occur whenever a word ends in 's'. It indicates the possessive case, belonging to the person or object in question. It is never, repeat, never, used with a simple plural 's'. Please get it right, it doesn't do much for your credibility littering your posts with superfluous apostrophes.

Peter

Peter I'm sorry that you are so constrained by having things just so that you are having difficulty understanding my meaning. Thankfully most posters are able to get past that and focus on the content rather than punctuation, spelling etc.

Perhaps we need something similar to Godwin's law for those who choose to attack another posters punctuation, spelling etc, in what is generally a legible post.

A sure sign that you don't actually have anything to contribute.

R0bert

<<suzeonline, Lexi, McReal & Pelican etc, i see none of you have dared to comment… >>

Counting myself as part of the etc, I've posted some data here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12487#216068

It ends "In summary, from 1911 to 1921, the figures for widowhood and divorce did not change significantly. But the married proportion of the population increased by 5%.

Whatever the causes of the Melbourne riots 'fatherlessness' was not one of them."

Formersnag
I don't have the time to comment on every article especially ones that are similar to others where I have already commented and could not offer anything new.

Lost of talk about morality on this issue including around IVF and plastic surgery. Who decides these things are immoral? I don't particularly think plastic surgery is the answer to people's insecurities but immoral? Drawing a long bow there.

Isn't it equally as immoral to force heterosexuality on gay people or to force people to marry a person of the opposite sex to live out a life of misery and despair. This is akin to facism.

Living in truth is better than living a lie surely.

I still don't understand the harm to society. Even if homosexuals don't marry they still won't conform to your idea of 'morality' or of 'family'. It is cruel and unfair to assume that people who don't fall within the heterosexual range are somehow wanting or less worthy as a human being.

pelican,
Many effeminite men whom society easily identify as homosexual are happily married family men. However many butch men engage in homosexual acts. Living a biological lie is the lot of those who engage in sex with the same gender.

Formersnag, I am not aware of any correlation between 'fatherlessness' and riots!
If we followed your twisted logic, we would surely have had mass riots between warring fatherless youth soon after both World Wars?

There were masses of fatherless children (and many motherless too) after these wars, and yet we never seemed to have great unrest around those war-torn countries did we?
Why not do you think?

It is a well known fact that as long as children have at least one significant adult to emulate, and have unconditional love in their lives, they will have had a great start.
Heterosexual Marriage can't promise that for sure, as you well know.

Suzanonline,

Ah yes,

The thin edge of the wedge, a favourite weapon of mass destruction regularly used by the feminist movement.

Start by saying that fathers aren’t necessary, which then allows single mothers, which then allows single women to have babies by IVF, which then allows homosexual couples to have babies by IVF.

All propped up by the taxpayer, who is normally a heterosexual male.

What happened to the heterosexual male cries out a heterosexual male.

"Not needed except for paying money" says the feminist, with their hand covering their mouth to hide their deceptive smirk.

Philo
"Many effeminite men whom society easily identify as homosexual are happily married family men. However many butch men engage in homosexual acts. Living a biological lie is the lot of those who engage in sex with the same gender."

How can it be a biological lie if it comes 'naturally' to them. You must see in nature there is variation in the traits among the thousands of plant and animal species including humans. Procreation takes a man and a woman but you are judging the standards of sexuality based only on that one premise. Procreation is the ability to make a child, it does not have any relevance to sexuality.

Homosexual men and women can be effeminate or butch, that is not new.

I have a very close male friend who people think might be gay but is in fact totally straight. I am not talking about superficial appearances but deep felt identity and the environment where homosexual men and women do not have access to rights we take for granted

NO pelican homosexual persons want rights that are not available to the heterosexual. Fertile homosexuals men buying babies is not natural, Fertile gay women using taxpayer funded IVF is not natural. Their condition is emotional bonding not biological as most are fertile, and very capable of giving birth to children.

Philo <"Fertile gay women using taxpayer funded IVF is not natural. Their condition is emotional bonding not biological as most are fertile, and very capable of giving birth to children."

Philo, where DO you get these wild statements from?
Not all of the Gay couples will be after IVF anyway.
All some gay women need is a turkey baster if they are really keen.
How do you know that all gay women accessing IVF treatment are fertile?

What business is it of yours as to the reasons they are accessing IVF?
ALL women who access IVF must be capable of giving birth in some way, otherwise why would they be having fertilised ovum implanted into their uterus?

If you are unhappy with your taxes going towards IVF medicare rebates for some of the huge expenses these procedures will incur for gay women, then we can all put in our objections for other rebates going to people we are unhappy about...right?

How about not allowing ANY rebates related to smoking related or alcohol related diseases to smokers or heavy drinkers?

Suzanonline
There are whole worksites that do not allow smoking and require 0.0 blood alcohol content. Mine sites are an example.

Under feminist rule, about 25% of children rarely see their natural father, and now the desire is to increase this % through IVF.

Under feminist rule, not knowing the natural father is considered a good thing.

But perhaps people don't want to live under feminist rule.

Vanka <"Under feminist rule, about 25% of children rarely see their natural father, and now the desire is to increase this % through IVF"

Really? Where are your stats? Maybe they are on the same websites Phillo looks at?

If what you say is true, then all those naughty fathers should hang their heads in shame for running out on their children's mother,
and not wanting to spend time with their kids.

Sounds like a man's world to me :)

IVF actually produces very few births, so I doubt that tiny number of babies will make much difference in any way.

What of the God-fearing-Christian-Heterosexual-'ideal'-married-couple IVF babies?
What will you tell those Daddies about their new IVF babies?

Suzanonline
“Consistent with prior studies in Australia (ABS 1998), around one-third (36%) of fathers do not appear to have any face-to-face contact with their children. By contrast, almost half (48%) of fathers have children stay overnight, while the remaining 17 per cent see their children only during the day.”

http://www.aifs.gov.au/conferences/aifs8/parkinson.pdf

Far from abdicating their responsibilities, over 70% of these fathers wanted more contact.

“By contrast, almost three quarters (72%) of the non-resident fathers who
rarely or never saw their children believed that they had nowhere near
enough contact (but note the 18 per cent who believed that the amount of
contact was about right.)”

The demonisation of fathers by the feminist movement, labelling them as “dead beats” or “absent fathers”, does not equate with the real data.

But I have never known a feminist to get anything right. Not once.

If legitimised, homosexual marriage will likely lead to many more babies being born through IVF.

Although the many issues and problems surrounding IVF are not being thought about, and I have noticed, not even mentioned by homosexual marriage lobby groups.

It seems to me that same-sex marriage is like trying to connect the male to male fittings, or female to female fittings on a garden hose.

It's just not on, and a reflection on the plight of modern thought that we are even discussing it!

Good point Al.

I can't read comments on the Gay Marriage issue anymore. Got about a third of the way down and had to stop. The ridiculous arguments people use are just appalling...seriously. I'm all for public debate of the big issues but the homosexual lobby really keeps stooping to new lows.

Please, gay marriage advocates, change your arguments. "We need equality" and "Stop discrimination" are not arguments- Marriage is discriminatory on many levels- The Australian marriage laws openly discriminate against those who want to marry multiple partners and they discriminate against those under 18, AND they discriminate against Homosexual people. All three of those groups are discriminated against because they distort the original purpose of Marriage. Marriage was never intended to be about allowing YOU the RIGHT to "celebrate your love with your soulmate" or "not be discriminated against" or anything like that.

Please, Gay marriage advocates, I plead with you- be honest enough to admit your agenda. Let's get that out in the open here. Your case is based on changing the fabric of marriage and it's purpose- you want to make marriage about selfish adult desires rather than it's traditional purpose of nurturing children for the betterment of society and the betterment of family. Please stop going on about discrimination and equality- those of us with a brain can see through those arguments, they are very transparent. If it was primarily about equality and stopping discrimination then you would be campaigning to allow those madly-in-love polygamists to get hitched. But I don't see you doing that, funnily enough. You have your civil partnerships, you just want to hijack someone else's word- marriage. Please, be honest with yourselves and the rest of us for a change.

"The ridiculous arguments people use are just appalling"

Trav you and the previous few posts have just given a more than adequate demonstration of that.

The pathetic excuses you use to try and disguise a desire to discriminate against those who don't fit your idea of what should be is sickening.

Maybe a little less time spend thinking about the physical aspects of homosexual love might do some of your co-posters some good. The obsession looks to be quite unhealthy.

R0bert

Discrimination, in a broad sense, is a necessary part of society and it exists in various forms and it always will. In fact, a functioning society would be impossible without it.

I'll be an honest discriminator over a liar without integrity any day of the week

R0bert,
You have said nothing for your position just used emotional blackmail "The ridiculous arguments people use are just appalling"

"The pathetic excuses you use to try and disguise a desire to discriminate against those who don't fit your idea of what should be is sickening".

Robert homosexuality and marriage are physical acts end of story.

It is a sad day when people get called bigots and homophobes for arguing the obvious. A man is a man and a woman is a woman and they complement each other like a nut and a bolt like a table and chairs. If you want to build a bridge with just nuts people would rightly declare you mad. The bridge would just fall apart. A bridge needs nuts and bolts just like a society needs marriage between a man and a woman. Marriage between a man and a woman is the fundamental building block of society. Families are the building block of the nation. Healthy families - healthy nation. Bob Katter is right. Why are we having this debate? It is laughable. As a great man once said. "A horse is a horse of course of course and no amount of social engineering can make a horse a camel" as much as the Greens would like it to be. Next they will all be calling those who disagree with homosexual marriage flat earthers or deniers and burning us at the stake.

Philo, if you care to look the first of those quotes is a quote from Trav in the previous post.

Warwick "It is a sad day when people get called bigots and homophobes for arguing the obvious" - what's a lot sadder is that some put so much effort into try to make others lives harder than they need to be.

Homosexual marriage won't take away from heterosexual marriage, it won't require any of us to become heterosexual, it will take away one more institutional sign of discrimination.

R0bert

Well said R0bert, these people don't bother to read and think about what you say. They're not interested in discussion, only in blowing their own (rather off key) trumpet. You might as well argue with a brick.

This more and more corrosive 'debate' about Marsh's article of so long ago has risen from the venom which appeared in many comments. Now, with the author's introduction of a fear that "burning at stake" may ensue, we have risen to the rare heights of Cloud-cuckoo-land.

Spot on Carol. I suspect there are a number of people around here who will be disappointed on the day they meet their maker. Bitterly disappointed. Because they will then, and only then, realise they've spent a whole lifetime hoodwinked by an organisation that deals only in power.

A typo in my previous post - should have said "it won't require any of us to become homosexual".

R0bert

R0bert,
Your total ignorance of the biology of reproduction means natural science discriminates against same sex sex. Homosexuality is not marriage and never will be until children are born from men's anus. Get the facts about discrimination, it is naturally occurring.

Obviously you haven't got an argument, only social discrimination and condemnation against those who hold the truth of reality.

Philo, if you are so hell-bent on giving us all a biology lesson, and feel that homosexual people can't get married because they can't naturally have children together, then why would you be ok with infertile heterosexual couples getting married?

Philo, if a gay or lesbian couple want to get married, but don't want children, wouldn't that be 'ok' then?

Warwick Marsh, why not tell the whole truth of your argument and say that you are against homosexuality because some guys who wrote stories in a book called the bible 2000 years ago, told you it was wrong?
And you believe them?

You and your fellow God-believers couldn't give a damn about 'healthy families', otherwise you wouldn't deny the existence and the equal rights of homosexual sons, daughters, mums and dads, the world over, as already being part of healthy families.

Unhealthy families are those who preach hate and bigotry to their children, in the name of some fairytale god.

Homosexual people being 'allowed' to marry won't affect you or yours, so leave them alone.

Obviously suzeonline you do not understand the meaning, the purpose and definition of marriage. Nature discriminates against marriage for two persons of the same gender - it is impossible! A marriage is not the signed paper for Government records. It is the physical union between two persons of diferent gender..

Well said Suzie. News just in - it's gay marriage that's causing Hurricane Irene!

http://christwire.org/2011/08/god-prepares-to-strike-new-york-with-hurricane-irene-gay-marriage-laws-to-blame/

Philo, you haven't answered any of my questions ... sigh.

Thanks MrGumby, it's nice to read the comments of reason and humanity,
such as you and RObert's contributions to this thread.
It makes me rejoice that not everyone in the world has gone mad :

The celebration of marriage has been around ever since humanity has been civilized. The Mesopotamians and following the Jews kept family genialities’ and their histories for posterity.

The State has not been involved in registering the union for more than 2 to 3 thousand years. The Roman Empire kept census of its citizens and the Roman Church become involved in keeping records for the Roman State. Marriage has never been merely a social declaration. It has always been a physical union. Homosexual acts has never been seen by any State as marriage - because it ain’t.

The homosexual lobby wish to reduce the term marriage to merely mean a public declaration of love between two persons of the same gender.

They can have a register or coming out ceremony. Heterosexuals do not need a coming out ceremony because they do not have anything to hide about a perfectly natural and designed biological event.