Rodney how attend able you are? That was only an online opinion that I vote against,on same sex marriage. What Jim Wallace had state and quite well said that was possible open to be misleading!
That is evident that the pool had be grossly be misuse, by homosexual and lesbian with they supporter!
Every one with more that one email can vote multiple time, and we know that pro same sex marriage had act and still use all sort of tactic and intimidation and had resort to false and misleading way before and still doing, including intimidation and misuse of discrimination to the media.
The writing submission that are verified by name and address had be overwhelming supporting the existing marriage and also various court for example: The European Union, High Court of Human Right had established: that is not a human right same sex marriage, adoption and reproduction for same sex. At the end the majority of Australian's are against same sex, and your group are only damaging our democracy and freedom of speech in the name of false unreasonable, unfunded human right request.God Bless.

How depressing! As always we have those opposed to change arguing from either personal prejudice or religious prejudice by using fallacies, lies and avoiding facts, while those seeking change argue from the perspective of decency, concern for the welfare of others [trying to stop gay hate crimes, murders, blackmail and suicides] and restrict themselves mainly to facts.
Paedophilia is a case in point, in contrast to the hype, there are statistically more heterosexual paedophiles than gay, apparently.
Yale University’s Professor John Boswell unearthed controversial evidence in the 1970s that condemnation of same-sex unions is actually relatively recent. The church in earlier times, he claimed, accepted and celebrated them. So when the six Catholic bishops say: “the Government cannot redefine the natural institution of marriage, a union between a man and a woman”, the response today is “why not?”
The fourth, and for some the clinching discovery, is that gay and lesbian pastors, teachers and leaders actually do a great job. As do LGBT congregation members as they participate more and more.
These four factors are leading many Jews and Christians worldwide to welcome LGBT people and support gay marriage. It is not yet a majority. But heading that way.
In May last year the conservative Presbyterians accepted gays in ministry in both the USA and Scotland. Other denominations are following. In the Roman Catholic church pressure is building. Change is being urged from within. The matter of active homosexuals in the priesthood is now in the open. The impact of legitimate gay marriage on recruiting priests is being discussed. But no-one expects change soon.
The world is changing. Churches and synagogues are changing. The battles, however, have a way to go.

'The world is changing. Churches and synagogues are changing.'
True ybgirp however thankfully the Word of God never changes and will continue alot longer than yours or mine life.

"The Word of God?"

Really? According to who?

I thought the Bible could not be taken literally.
It was symbolic , and - was written by some men ages ago -
and we only have their interpretation of what did
or did not take place or what was said.
It was written in a language (words) that
today have different meanings - and in a context
that can only be applied to those times - not today.

cont'd ...

"It ain't necessarily so
It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so..."

runner
There are still more Christians in parliament than atheists and lesbians so if you are so concerned about uneven influences, using your logic we should balance out the equation and get a few more atheists and homosexuals, and what about Buddhists, Hindus and other groups?

No politician, Minister or PM is ever going to reflect exaclty what any of us think on every issue. An atheist PM is not necessarily going to oppose SSM or support SSM (you made the point with Gillard). The same goes with a Christian PM although it is more likely they will take your view even if not as violently. Many Christians are now calling for SSM within their churches. There is no point in writing nasty words about personal attributes of politicians just because you disapprove of their way of life. Many people may disagree with you but that does not stop you for standing for Parliament should you wish to, the same goes for lesbians, atheists, buddhists etc.

Whether a Minister is a lesbian or a heterosexual does not characterise or determine their stance on every issue. You speak as though a belief automatically defines a homogenous group.

Squeers
I hear you.

Chris C
Definitions, language and indeed legislation do not always remain static. In some cultures marriage is defined also by property exchanges or dowries, marriage vows have changed generally to exclude the idea of obedience.

What would be your reason for leaving 'marriage' as only defining a long term commitment between heterosexuals and not gays? What purpose does it serve. Clearly marriage is no longer forever, so it seems a bit nitpicky to me. But if it should pass that there are two sorts of marriages - hetero and gay then so be it.

Why do so many people (thankfully a minority according to surveys) so against SSM?