>>What do you think<<

I think you have an unhealthy fascination with other peoples PRIVATE sexual proclivities you weird pervert.

Cheers,

Tony

Hi Blaise,

You realise that "the sun will still rise" is just an expression, right? I mean, you know the NZ MP wasn't literally using the continued presence of the sun as an argument in favour of marriage equality, don't you?

And are you reaaaaally the 'editor of Conjugality'? Because the Conjugality website gives its editor as Michael Kirke.

Most certainly Australians should adopt the NZ short 'i'. The hideous elongated versions they use at present are uniformly hideous.

As for arguments, Blaise, you should look at the submissions supporting gay marriage to the Senate's Legal and Constitutional Committee's inquiries into gay marriage. And you really ought not to leap into print until you have done your homework.

Nor was it an argument for giving women the vote.
New Zealand sadly, has all to often led the way, and we followed.
Unless of course you include sheep, which were introduced into Australia,along with all those "sheepish" Dad and Dave jokes, well before any showed up In N.Z.
Given Tony Abbott has already flagged a conscience vote for his side of politics, somewhere in his first term, rest assured, we will once again, soon follow the liberalising lead of our Kiwi cousins.
Incidentally, why are deceased Kiwis buried at least 8 feet down?
Because deep deep down, they're really nice people.
And, how can you tell if an Aussie "SHEEP" farmer is on the level?
Because he dribbles equally, out both sides of his mouth.
Boom boom.
Rhrosty.

The postmodern, homosexual lobby has a real problem handling a dose of simple logic based on everyday reality.

Well done Blaise there will be a lot of 'tut tutting' in the gay coffee bars today

I wondered about that as well, Timaahy.

>>And are you reaaaaally the 'editor of Conjugality'? Because the Conjugality website gives its editor as Michael Kirke<<

It's there, plain as can be.

"The editor of Conjugality is Michael Kirke, an Irish journalist living in Dublin".

http://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality/about/

One can only speculate why the author of the piece thinks it is ok to pretend to a position they don't hold. Possibly because the arguments are so thin, they need some kind of veneer of authority. For example:

"The current public purpose of marriage lies mainly in encouraging a man and a woman to look after their child when they have one."

Where is this stated in the legislation? The Marriage Act, which is of course what is under discussion here, contains no information on marriage's "public purpose"; it simply establishes its legal scope. Once you remove this pillar of untruth from Mr Joseph's piece, there is nothing of any authority whatsoever to underpin his arguments.

Nothing but bluster.