It's funny how a century ago the church was at the forefront of human rights, but is now fighting against further human rights.

There are two conflicting forces in play here: the Religious one which is trying to keep its control over its gullible flock and the Gay and Lesbian one which is trying to change all the rules in society so that it can feel it has some legitimacy.

The bottom line is that all religion is based upon a fraud and there is not one shred of evidence to support any of it. And even if gays and lesbians change all the laws and marry and adopt dozens of children, they will never be accepted by mainstream society because they are clearly atypical.

Let the arguments rage. They mean nothing anyway!

http://dangerouscreation.com

It is absurd to say that government registration of marriage is a "human right".

Gay couples have the same right to marry as heterosexual couples.

Cornflower, if the Marriage Act did mean a union between men and women only, why did the Howard government go to the lengths of changing the legislation?

Legalising gay marriage isn't the same thing as forcing gays into marriage. It's extending the same freedom of choice to same sex couples as everyone else has.

A Galaxy poll result showed that 60% of Australians are in favour of same sex marriage.

I don't know how you get into a non consensual de facto relationship. I don't know how you don't know you're in a de facto relationship. I really think the onus for being informed on these crucial matters has to be with the parties involved.

Sorry about the grammar concerning posts on the 11th as not wearing my glasses.lol

p.s The red wine didn't help. smile.

The evolving changes of the human mindset will always be an ongoing development concerning our own evolution.
Like I've said before, the church is going to have to realize and change with the times or before long it to will find itself extinct.

I simply cant understand why the christian institution can not see or adapt to the winds of change.

TTM

briar rose, "if the Marriage Act did mean a union between men and women only, why did the Howard government go to the lengths of changing the legislation?"

Again you pretend that the Act meant something different whereas it did not. The common understanding always was that it referred to one man and one woman and the proofs as if any were needed are:

- there was never a marriage under the Act other than between one man and one woman;

- a very large majority of parliament confirmed its meaning; and

- there was no groundswell to challenge the passage Parliament's view.

As you very well know and it was announced by PM Howard at the time, the Parliament acted solely to confirm and protect what existed, there was no change in meaning whatsoever and no action would have been necessary were it not for lawyers trying to weasel other meanings as you are trying to do.-

BR, "Legalising gay marriage isn't the same thing as forcing gays into marriage."

Again the challenge I put to you, if the de facto changes were not Big Sister deciding what was best for gays (and heterosexuals) what was? It is common law marriage, yes?

The fact is that an interfering elite has managed to make a complete hash of de facto regulations. No-one is sure of their status regarding the de facto provisions and no common person can say without fear of being overturned, when he/she is in a de facto relationship or not.

There was no groundswell of demand for the changes to the de facto arrangements, for the changes by an elite that obviously did not want nor see the need for proper community consultation, nor for the extension of the arrangements to gays, whose choices and lifestyles were obviously at odd with those conditions and interpretations - as can be now seen from the problems caused to them.

As was made obvious in the recent federal election, the electorate is highly critical and distrusting of policy by focus groups, or through deals done in back rooms.

contd..