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").