I dunno, Geoff of Perth. I think you do care about what your neighbours do. If you had kids and there was a sexual predator that sat in their living room window watching your kids waiting for the opportunity to snatch them you should be worried. If there was a violent gang next door that threatened your safety to keep quiet then you would care.

Now we have those in support of gay marriage saying that there is nothing wrong with it. That it can be as healthy as a heterosexual marriage. My concern is where are they getting this evidence from? What studies covering multiple generations are studied? What will be the affects to society as we know it in 100, 200, 500 years?

The greatest evidence that heterosexual relationships work is simply that we are here. IVF and other science based assistance did not exist in the past, so it must be supposed that the gay populations of the past became extinct. Why should I support a movement in society that is self-destructive for society? If the first settlers to Australia were all gay, I can bet that there would not be Australia. To legalise same-gender marriage puts at risk the population of future Australia, which puts at risk the economy. So to say it doesnt matter is a fallacy.

That actually makes it even more interesting, Graham.

>>There have been a few posts above suggesting that Blaise is not the editor of Conjugality. Not sure why this should be an issue... you can easily establish via a Mercator.Net tweet that he became editor on April 3, 2013.<<

I expect that when you find yourself in a situation where you need financial advice, or a lawyer, or even a driving instructor, you tend to examine their background and circumstances before you accept their qualification to give advice, guidance or instruction.

Much the same applies here on OLO. It is useful, sometimes quite important, to know that the views you are reading come from, say, Julie Bishop or John Pilger. At the very least, that knowledge provides valuable context.

In the case of Mr Joseph, the initial thought was "why does he pretend to be something he is not? Why does he find it necessary to big-note himself?" With that background, it is possible to view his contribution as some form of job application, or perhaps a personal positioning statement, rather than the formal policy document that it now clearly is.

However, equally important from the viewpoint of providing context, is that the Conjugality website has as its worldwide editor, a twenty/twentyone-year-old university student, employing the full range of his life experiences in the promulgation of his fiercely-held views on what other people should, or should not, do.

Always good to have that information.

Got this in an email today.

For those who haven't heard, New Zealand just passed both laws - gay marriage and legalized marijuana.
The fact that gay marriage and marijuana were legalized on the same day makes perfect biblical sense because Leviticus 20:13 says,
"If a man lies with another man they should be stoned."
We just hadn't interpreted it correctly before!

Random Guy, you know that that is a load of rubbish, gay people have been born since the year dot to hetrosexual couples, and the world has not stopped going around.

Everyone has a choice whether or not to engage in homosexcual acts.

The same apples to heterosexual acts.

"Marriage equality, marriage for all, equal love"- not arguments but simply meaningless slogans. When proponents are honest and admit that what they are asking for is a radical re-definition of marriage it may be possible to have a genuine discussion.

Gay marriage will never be equal to the marriage I have with my wife, so even if they do get to share the marriage word, it will mean little to me.

Alternatively, they can simply find another word, it really is that simple.