What better way to 'defend' marriage than include SSM in the mix. Marriage is about commitment and love it is not an 'attack' on that essential purpose.

It is just a legal term and legal terms can be amended at any time through an Act of Parliament. Many Christian SS couples also desire to be married in the 'sight of God', but I guess that is a matter for the various denominations.

'Normal' only refers to what is usual or most common. It does not mean that those who fall out of the median/medium range should be punished for being different to that 'norm'. If somebody is homosexual it means it is occuring in 'nature' for reasons unknown. Nature is rarely uniform and having family members who are gay I have seen that it is not a 'choice' for them but just who they are as much as being blonde or brunette.

Are we that uncivilised that we cannot accept people in all their shapes and sizes.

It is not all doom and gloom. As a society I think we are becoming more moral in many ways than in previous years. We are no longer as racist or in fear of foreigners (for the most part); homosexuals no longer have to hide in the closet for fear of censure or worse beatings. While there are a few who would dictate to others how they should live their lives there is hope for a fairer and more 'loving' world to come.

Surely the first call should be a 'do no harm' test and I cannot see how SSM is going to affect in any way those who believe marriage to be an exclusive club between a man and a woman.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12485#215845

Pelican, i accept that you are an honest decent person who is trying to be open to debate & caring, but the true nature or title of this article should be "what caused the riots & the great fire of Sydney 2020".

Marriage is not & never has been about love. it is about committment to raising happy, healthy children in the safest possible environment, namely lifetime, heterosexual marriage. Anything less is child abuse & neglect.

Marriage is NOT just a "legal term" it is also a religious term. There is no reigion in the world other than communism which allows SSM.

There are NO GLBT christians, only "false prophets" & devil worshipping communists.

Why should more than 98% of the population have to change or have their civil rights assaulted so that less than 2% of the population, who are mentally ill be allowed to delude themselves &/or be encouraged to stay crazy.

it is indeed "uncivilised" to encourage the sexual abuse of children, so as to manufacture DEvolution of our society. there is also a great difference between tolerating or not abusing perverse minorities & hero worshipping abnormalities. the communists are in the business of creating mediocrity & failure.

http://www.rense.com/general32/americ.htm please, do yourself a favour, read the whole thing word for word several times but pay particular attention to #26. Throughout the entire history of the USSR GLBT lifestyle was reppressed but encouraged in the west? why do you think the closet communists did that?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/the-covert-comrades-in-the-alp/story-e6frg6zo-1225887087909 closet communism was rife in the land of OZ, as well as everywhere else.

We have on all social indicators been getting LESS moral, ethical since the mid 1960's.

A loving, moral society dispences "tough love" when it is needed, rather than encouraging dysfunctionality, hopelessness, drug & welfare dependency.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvTGYiwXKZ0&feature=share parental alienation is real, feMANazis have been whinging about it for years, ever since some men got "custody" of their children. all children have the RIGHT to both biological parents. there is no more "alienated" child than one raised by GLBT people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24sjYlydAuw&feature=share here is the base psychology involved, self delusion.

I feel that what is happening - is that we
are increasingly tolerating a variety of
alternative marriage and family styles. The
reasons are linked, primarily, to the nature of
our society as a post-industrial society.

A hallmark of such a society is its economic and
cultural diversity, combined with a highly
developed sense of individualism. In this
environment, people tend to make decisions about
marriage, divorce, abortion, child-rearing, and
the like in terms of what they, personally, want -
rather than in terms of traditional moralities,
obligations to kin, or the other impersonal
pressures that previous generations unquestioningly
accepted. Pursuing their own vision of self-fulfillment,
or responding to the social and economic predicament
in which they find themsleves, many people are modifying
the family/marriage system to suit their individual needs.

Significantly, enough, some of the variant marriage and
family patterns are becoming recognised, formally or
informally, by such official agencies as the Bureau of
the Census, the state and federal courts, the Internal
Revenue Service, and government welfare departments.

It will inevitably therefore come to pass that our society
will move - to a situation in which things like same-sex
marriage will simply come to be taken for granted. Most
Australians are in favour of it. So its not a question of
if, but simply - when.

As I've stated in the past - each society views its own
patterns of marriage, family, and kinship, as self-evidently
right and proper, and usually as God-given as well,

Much of the current concern about the fate of the modern marriage
and family stems from this kind of ethnocentrism. If people
assume that there is only one "right" marriage/family form,
then naturally any change will be interpreted as heralding the
doom of the whole institution.

It is important therefore, to recognize that there is an
immense range in marriage, family, and kinship patterns.
That each of these patterns may be, at least in their own
context, perfectly viable, and above all, that marriage,
family, like any other social institution, must inevitably
change through time, in our own society as in all others.

Ammonite, I did enjoy that link thanks.

Sometimes it all seems like a waste of time but remember that it's not the extremists who might be open to thinking differently. Rather the decent people who've might read but not comment. The ones who've been fed a steady died of one sided views from the pulpit or their social circles but who do try to hold honest and credible views. Sometimes all that takes is another perspective to consider. Some can change and do change.

Pelican and Lexi well said.

R0bert

Lexi,
All very well, but who has to pay for it.

I think you will find that many of these so-called marriage types are not economicly sustainable, so someone else has to pay for them.

When economies collapse or go into recession, only 1 marriage type is sustainable enough to produce enough children to keep society functioning.

That marriage type is not homosexual marriage, nor is it the feminist ideal of children born through a series of de facto relationships.

"only 1 marriage type is sustainable enough to produce enough children to keep society functioning"

vanna how is not allowing homosexual people to marry going to produce more children?

Are you thinking that if homosexual people can't marry others of their own gender that they will just go for a hetrosexual marriage and all will be happy homes?

If enough social pressure is placed on homosexual people some will enter into hetrosexual marriages but I think that's very destructive for all involved. Would you really want a partner who had never found you sexually attractive but married you because of social pressure and or legal restrictions?

Can you imagine how unpleasant a relationship that would be for both over the long term?

R0bert