me think that their are alot more people Blaises age than he realises that agrees with his views. Extremist like Getup like to claim to be representative of the youger generation. Normally they are represtantive of the brainwashed crowd who think they know everything but in fact know very little.

...I have a simple view, NOT based on the fallacy daylight saving fades the curtains!: And live in hope, time one day will stand still, as is the nature of the universe.

...Likewise I remain convinced; in that beautiful timeless world of unchange, homosexuality remains forever the crime against humanity that it is!

PS!

"When you have the majority of fish at a site showing up intersex, that's worrisome”. Say scientists studying a phenomenon of hermaphrodidic fish in US rivers.

Shame is, the same level of concern does not apply to the human species

@Donkeygod:

There's a lot of truth to what you say. Indeed, my final words were something of a self-fulfilling prophecy in this context. As for your issues about polygamy and marriages with "a person who's just turned ten", I'll address that: the latter is a complete non-issue. A ten year old cannot consent. You must have the ability to consent and comprehend and sign marriage documents. That's why people who baulk at the idea of homosexual marriage and claim that it's a slippery slope to marrying "inanimate objects and animals" don't have an argument. I don't imagine our perception of what constitutes a reasonable age of consent or a ten year old's ability to comprehend marriage and fill out legal documents will change anytime in the near future.

As for polygamy, I am not entirely sure. From a purely moral perspective, I see nothing wrong it. From a legal perspective, it is fraught with complications.

Subjectively, I cannot counter any accusations that I want this change to "just happen". It's sort of true. I am an impatient kind of woman and it frustrates me that whenever opinion polls pop up, its made pretty clear that most Australians (not a large majority, but a majority nevertheless) are in support of marriage equality. This is a democracy (or at least it tries to be), and the fact that our elected leaders either ignore or outright deny the wishes of the vox populi strikes me as worrisome.

@Diver Dan:

I have no idea what you hope to point out by equating mutations probably caused by the insecticide DDT to marriage equality. Also, on your first post, are you on drugs or something? That's not a "simple view", that makes no effing sense. If your incoherent ramblings are attempting to steer toward "Homosexuality is unnatural, therefore it is wrong", then do the entire internet a favor and throw your computer out of the nearest window. The very computer you typed your insipid post on is "unnatural", you know.

Irate Goldfish,
So you are fighting for marriage equality. When will you realize that marriage was established for the procreation and protection of children. Two males or two females will never produce a family from their genes. They will never be equal. .

Dear Philo,
Who, might I ask, came up with that garbage about the purpose of marriage is to procreate?, that, in my view is absolute bunkum.
Marriage is between two people who love each other and want to spend their lives together, no matter what their sexual orientation is.
Children, if they happen to come along, are a joy, even to adoptive parents.This jargon smacks of some religious concoction.
NSB