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.