onthebeach - What expertise do you have since you purport to be a better judge than the Gillard government and the Australian Human Rights Commission?

With all due respects, wouldn't you agree that **ANYBODY**, even the drovers dog, would be an infinitely better judge than the red-headed witch or a gubmunt bureaucrazy muppet :) :) :) That aside, I agree 100% with your views on the part played by militant feminazis, queerdom has yet to realize what its got itself into.

Dear Prax.,

"Militant feminazis?"

Are they any different from the goose-stepping
brotherhood?

Lexi - "Militant feminazis?"

Are they any different from the goose-stepping
brotherhood?

Yeah, the geese are males as far as I'm aware :)

The real reason Rodney Croome and fellow lobbyists do not want a referendum, is that they know that the majority of voters do not want to trash the definition of marriage.

Instead, the lobbyists aim to get their way by bullying politicians, so that they can count on their conscience vote. What observers fail to realise is that the succumbing politicians then have a conflict of interest by acting against the wishes of the majority of constituents they represent.

Of course, the more Liberal MPs who surrender their conscience vote to the SSM lobby, the better the lobby's prospects.

What the "same-sex marriage" proponents demand is destructive change to the definition of marriage and what it really means. What they destroy is that marriage unites a man and a woman with each other and any children born from their union.

The term "same-sex marriage" gives the appearance of same-sex couples merely participating in marriage, but in reality that is impossible. To accommodate same-sex couples requires redefining marriage in the law to make marriage merely the public recognition of a committed relationship for the fulfilment and happiness of adults. There is no longer any inherent connection between the relationship of the adults, procreation, children, and a family of common ancestry

Lexi,

So you cannot mount any argument to prove your unfounded allegation that gays are discriminated against by the Marriage Act and their rights are being denied?

You cannot dispel what the Gillard government and the Australian Human Rights Commission have been saying, that the Marriage Act does not discriminate against gays, nor does it diminish their rights.

General Comment,

Of course the feminists and 'Progressives' have hitched a ride on the gay wagon and have managed to steer it as well. The rush is on to bed down laws to complete the social engineering and to regulate their relationships and lifestyles to be just like 'breeders'. So much for the previous freedom, diversity and future options of queer culture. Society should protect and cultivate some outlaws who are not threats to democracy, and up to recently when the feminists and 'Progressives' got them by the reins, the gays fitted that bill.

Honestly, if the politically oriented feminists and 'Progressive' lobby groups really cared for gays -if their aim was to help gays not to hijack gays to achieve their own political ends- they would have proposed and taken action to give gays more rather than less freedom in conducting their personal affairs. But no, after gay activists fell for the "We're her to protect your rights" bait it is one size fits all State regulation, which was intended all along.

Gay marriage gives precious little to gays, but it prevents any other forms of relationship being developed by them. Many gays might want to flex types of relationship and arrangements. Too late guys, the controlling, authoritarian feminists and political 'Progressives' have pulled that rug out from under your feet. It always was about politics, not caring for gays.