CJ Morgan,

Because our laws are still linked, albeit tenuously, to natural law.

HermanYutic,

What exactly do you mean by "natural law", and how does it pertain to marriage?

I can't think of a single species, other than Homo sapiens, that practises marriage.

C J Morgan

As I have made it abundantly clear the democratically elected government of Australia supports the Marriage Act as it is. If that means that anyone who uphold what the government has decreed then so be it the parliament is filled with homophobes and so is the electorate.

But what democratically elected governments decide wouldn't matter much to a bloke who on another thread opposed universal suffrage, maintaining that people shouldn't be entitled to vote unless they passed a test of 'civics' and whatever. It didn't matter to you that you would exclude many of your fellow countrymen from their right to vote, including many Indigenous people. You have contempt for all who differ with you and your continual insulting labelling of any who differs with you betrays that. Of course your will to disenfranchise people you consider are not as smart as you says the same.

You also misrepresented whether or not I would agree with the formal recognition of gay and lesbian unions. Clearly I don't object and I have said so (and you know it), however I am not in favour as a general principle, of slyly modding existing legislation so that it performs other purposes than those for which the original bill was intended.

There are already examples of legislation where interpretation and amendment by delegates of the Minister have resulted in effects that are arguably the opposite of that intended.

Why not be up-front and admit that the purposes you would like the Marriage Act to serve have absolutely nothing to do with the original intent of it when passed and recently confirmed by parliament?

Honesty in government and in framing, passing and administering legislation may not be important to social pragmatists like you but it sure is to me and many others. So be honest, put up a new Bill and have the facts and courage to defend it.

More hot air and obfuscation from Cornflower - without answering my very simple question.

I'll ask it again - why shouldn't those homosexuals who wish to marry each other be allowed to by the State?

So be honest yourself, put up your real reasons for denying homosexuals the right to marry, and have the facts and courage to defend them.

C J Morgan

You are as predictable as any schoolyard bully with your broken record taunts and insults.

If that is the best you have to offer and you are unwilling to engage with the opinions and argument of others so be it.

No way that most would waste their time playing your parlour games and I am no different to them.

Cornflower,

My question is right on topic and is very straightforward. I don't think any reasonable person would regard it as "taunting" or "bullying". I'm not playing "parlour games", rather I'm speaking out against discrimination on the basis of sexuality.

The fact that you refuse to answer my simple question is very telling, as is your defence of discrimination against homosexuals who want to marry. I'm sure that reasonable, unbiased readers will draw their own conclusions.