The state is all in all now, everyone believes their freedom must be mediated by it http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2011/07/community-and-liberty-or-individualism-and-statism/ All our secondary associations in civil society have been absorbed - the state plays father, husband, church, charity, employer, inquisitor, coach, trainer, and planetary saviour! (CAGW) All competitors have been defeated and liberalism and its state actors rule over us. We fund them to in order that they steal our local and personal autonomy and independence through regulation. Big money is umbilically tied to the big state - they work hand in glove - small business can't access the market.

Marriage and family are non-liberal, they are unchosen, given by nature and our sex, culture and tradition. As such they are inherently suspect under liberalism which is all about choice as such as the highest good. But when will/choice rules, the biggest will - the state - triumphs - and they know it.

These people who attack the Doctors see them as a direct threat to their access to state power, and so see them as an existential threat. When in reality our autonomy, and freedom DOES NOT GO THROUGH THE STATE - though they devoutly want everyone to think it does - but in the ways ozconservativeblog emphasises. The state and its journalists WANT everything lifted up to national significance, it increases their status and importance in everyone's eyes. And state actors foment this marriage debate but absolutely have no authority over it. It is a pretence, male/female marriage precedes the state and church. To reject the tradition of marriage rooted in our nature and children, opens up the precedent that the next generation can reject this new ssm tradition the state wants promulgated - it is self defeating.

Don't play into their hands, don't participate in their witch hunts. Starve the state. http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=1815

Those radical liberals the Greens, draw their life from the state and you pay their salaries, others want to get on board, liberal proposals like abolishing marriage are intoxicatingly attractive to these people.

Here here!

Excellent article.

It is so incredibly hypocritical that those on the left who preach tolerance and acceptance are the most hateful aggressive individuals and groups in society.

It seems that freedom of speech is only acceptable to the progressive left if you agree with their agenda.

Any consenting man (hetro, bi, gay), of legal age, can marry any consenting woman (hetro, bi, gay), of legal age.

There is absolutely no discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation at all. Marriage is remarkably non-discriminatory; one-man-one-woman regardless of race, sexual orientation, culture, religion...

I am so sick of this absolute nonsense that marriage is discriminatory.

I am also so sick of hearing bleating tantrums about the so called "rights" of adults to have their lifestyle choices validated by the tax payer. What about the REAL human rights of children to be raised by their biological parents?

I'd call INTENTIONALLY robbing an innocent child of a mother just to satisfy the lifestyle choice of a couple of men is the grossest form of discrimination and child abuse I can think of.

And before you get all "its not a lifestyle choice, they're born that way" on me, listen to this. 100% of heterosexual men are born with biological programing to be polygamous. We are not biologically born to be monogamous. But due to the social benefit of monogamy to child raising we make a lifestyle choice to be monogamous.

If I can make the lifestyle choice to go against my biological DNA and be a dedicated monogamous husband for the sake of my children and society then it can't be that much of an effort for homosexuals to make some lifestyle choices themselves for the sake of children and society.

DPE1978. "But due to the social benefit of monogamy to child raising we make lifestyle choice to be monogamous"
Then how come near 50% of hetrosexual marriages end in divorce or separation.

""Any consenting man (hetro, bi, gay), of legal age, can marry any consenting woman (hetro, bi, gay), of legal age.

""There is absolutely no discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation at all. Marriage is remarkably non-discriminatory; one-man-one-woman regardless of race, sexual orientation, culture, religion...""

Posted by DPE1978, Thursday, 17 May, 12:27pm

Exactly. Except the 'hardware' may be appropriate (male/female "fittings"), but the *software* isn't, right??!

Except that gay men & gay women were marrying hetero-women & hetero-women, respectively, because they felt compelled to conform to exactly that paradigm, didn't they DPE1978??!

That is why we have a couple of generations where kids are being raised by a homosexual parent who was formerly in a heterosexual marriage that produced kids, isn't it??!

So when you plead " ... for homosexuals to make some lifestyle choices themselves for [your definition of] the sake of children and society" do you really want these scenarios repeated??!

Why shouldn't those wired-to-be-homosexual be able to raise kids if they do can do it positively and respectfully for those kids?

Importantly ... There hardly is any "INTENTIONAL robbing an innocent child of a mother just to satisfy the lifestyle choice of a couple of men". The notion that innocent children are universally widely robbed of a mother is a gross misrepresentation; a straw-man fallacy.

'due to the social benefit of monogamy to child raising we make lifestyle choice to be monogamous"'

Seriously?

You stay monogamous for your kids? Do you not love your wife? Do you think her feelings are irrelevant and you're only worried that you'll lose the kids? Or do you think your kids will find out if you and your wife swing or have an open relationship?

As I must say again, I would like to be legally recognised, by the government, as the mother of my children. The government should change all its legislation to allow men to be recognised as mothers. We know mothers are the true nurturers of children, and being a 'mother' has stronger nurturing connotations than being a father. See even though I have all the rights of being a parent (as gays have in civil unions and defacto laws all the rights of being married), I want the symbolism of being called a 'mother'. It's just like gay people and that word 'marriage'.

I don't think it's too much to ask for the law makers to re-write all their books and change the meaning of any word for feel-good symbolism.

Conversely, I have made no contract with my partner, yet the state has enforced a contract on our relationship, designating us 'de-facto', and imposing mutual responsibilities on us. The state has effectively made it illegal to live together, have children, and remain non-married. That choice, in an attempt to give gay civil unions the same rights as married people, has been taken away form me.

So I agree with Herb too. Let them just piss off defining relationships and have an equal, opt-in (rather than the compulsory de-facto laws) civil unions for any two people, and let the churches worry about 'marriage'.

And I agree with Stezza, Thursday, 17 May 2012 10:00:56 AM

I think the reality is is that many of the so-called "religious right" and their supporters are simply bible bashing fruit cakes who desire to inflict their own beliefs on others and have little to no regard for the religious and other beliefs of others.

Their are those of other religious persuasions who hold that the basis for "marriage" is love, not gender or sexual orientation.

I am certainly of the view that if the allegations regarding *RatSingers* (amongst others) deliberate and willful cover up for pedophiles is true that he should be arrested, subjected to corporal punishment and locked up for the rest of his days and if indeed they are wide ranging and institutional, that they should be stripped of their titles and have their property confiscated.

What a sick joke it is that these people are even heard.

A higher regard for "Freedom of Religion" would also go a long way to resolving this issue.

I would remind you that from amongst the ranks of the political churches we also have a long history of baby and child theft, not limited to the so called "Stolen Generation." Those responsible deserve the harshest of punishment in my opinion.