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.