simply the 'gay'lobby wanted perverse lifestyles condoned. Whether legal or not like the killing of babies its always wrong and always will be.

Jim Wallis is absolutely right! If you chang e the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, there is nothing to stop it from being changed again.

This is a complete nonsense. We've seen it happen in the Netherlands. Canada recently had a debate about legalising polygamy.

None of this would be good for our country.

Typical tail wagging the dog comment from a dyed in the wool control freak? People everywhere regardless of race, colour, ethnicity, religious belief or sexual orientation, have an equal right to the pursuit of personal happiness and sexual gratification.
All the Gay community seem to be asking for is the formalisation of already existing long term relationships?
The times they are a changing and if you can't help with that change, toward real rather than sham democracy, then get out of the way and take your patently medieval belief system with you!
Remember always, that not all that long ago, Mother church could excommunicate those that believed on the basis of irrefutable scientific evidence, that the world was round.
Even so, there remains a flat earth society head-quartered in London.
I believe most of the anti gay lobby come from the more backward less developed parts of the planet; and then, only from the less educated, red neck bigots?
Perhaps the only way we can stop Mr Wallace from judging the morals of others, and refocus solely on his own; is to entirely negate all his often spurious argument with a referendum, followed by a conscience vote?
Perhaps the conscience vote could be conducted as a secret ballot, so that Mr Wallace's equally ignorant fellow travellers, can't organise electoral reprisals? Rhrosty.

""Same-sex couples acquiring babies through surrogacy must dliberately decide to rob a child of one of its biological parents.""

Posted by James Bigglesworth, Tuesday, 5 June 2012 8:11:35 AM

It doesn't have to "rob" the child of one of its biological parents, that would only happen if, during the child's life, that biological parent was unreasonably excluded or negated. "Severing" does not have to happen or be seen to have happened.
.......................................

Concerned_p, today, 7:35:03 AM - yes, "focus on a discussion based on truth and respect" would be appropriate.

To what what illogical arguments do you refer?
.....................................

runner, 9:52:41 AM - what has gay marriage and gay couples seeking to raise children got to do with killing babies?
Also, plenty of heteros also have perverse lifestyles, runner.

"Marriage was institutionalised to protect not only society from the nonsense of things like multiple unions, but specifically children. Unless children were involved, government would have no interest in marriage."

Even if this were true, the corollary of Jim's argument is that governments should be involved and interject when children are born or raised outside marriage. Therefore, by Jim's argument, gay marriage is desirable, especially for children whose "other parent" has died, and his next assertion is negated -

"Neither gay nor polyamorous “marriages” could serve the interests of children. Gay marriage by definition denies a child either a mother or a father."

Parental death does that, too.
.......................................

"Mother love and father love that no amount of gay-activist-dominated studies can tell a parent doesn’t matter to a child."

Jim, are you saying love needs to be qualified?
................................................

"if nature can be brought into this argument, then surely biological marriage is the natural stopping point" ....

.. is just the naturalistic fallacy, which Jim negated previously when he said

""... Nikko Antalffy .. recently gave a rambling defence of polyamory in a national newspaper, claiming it takes us back to our pre medieval natural desires",

yet also redefined when he said

"But let’s be honest, they are in reality pagan desires, customs rightly long rejected"
...............................

Here Jim poisons the well ..

" .. now only contemplated by a parliament that is perhaps less esteemed than any in the country’s history. A parliament forced to consider the intolerable due only to the artificial power of the Greens."

How fortunate it is that Jim Wallace draws attention to the inevitable next steps which will follow present moves to meddle with marriage.
Marriage is an institution established in response to nature's design and should remain in its present form.
Same sex relationships are in a different category and the law should continue to reflect that fact.
Moves already afoot to list other mixtures of people under the heading of marriage smack of social science fiction.