David G - I reject the proposition of gay 'marriage'. I find the images of two men passionately kissing or men dressed in bridal dresses as deeply offensive and I am sickened by it.

I see the desperate push by the Gay Lobby as being proof that our society is rapidly becoming depraved and, with fear, I wonder what the next step is likely to be.

When are the pedophiles going to demand their rights to have sex with children or even have parents demanding the right to have sex with their offspring?

EXACTLY. How FFS did we move so quickly from recognizing the AC-DC set have a very real problem to actually approving their activities ?? I noticed a recent media article claiming its now illegal for teachers in the NSW public school system to tell rug-rats being straight is normal !! Just the thought of two men together is disgusting beyond words. As you so correctly note, what DOES come next ?? The only political figure I'm aware of who has chosen to speak against the slow but steady reduction in moral standards is Senator Bernardi, and he quickly got jumped on by all and sundry. As I've said elsewhere, I am aware of a number of kiddyfiddlers in positions that make them effectively untouchable (yes Martha, the powers that be do know about them) so its not by any means inconceivable that this insidious practice will also be legitimized in due course.

"It ought to be made clear that I believe that marriage is fundamentally between a man and a woman, and so I do not support gay marriage."

Agreed

This is a media-led push, with the media being manipulated by activists and political 'Progressives'. Gays who disagree are not being given a platform. They wanted and got and end to discrimination. Now they want to be left in peace to enjoy their alternative lifestyles. Unfortunately for them, the serially interfering political 'Progressives', who always know what is best for everyone else, have other ideas.

There is no discrimination against gays. The Greens/Gillard government has stated emphatically that it removed all such discrimination through over 80 law changes. The Australian Human Rights Commission agrees and it does not regard the Marriage Act as discriminatory against gays. Gay rights are not being denied. Or else gay activists would be pounding on the doors of the Australian Human Rights Commission and it would be ferocious in defence of those alleged 'rights'.

Gay 'rights' in this case is a furphy, all rhetoric to bluff, bully and negatively stereotype opponents as 'homophpbes', which they are not.

It is just a small number of activists, but mainly political 'Progressives' of the Left who have taken it upon themselves to tell all gays how to lead their lives. Up until very recently the same advocates who push for gay marriage were adamantly opposed to the extension of the model of heterosexual marriage and the State control it broght with it, to gay relationships.

The effect of the meddling of the 'Progressives' is already apparent from the changes to de facto law where gays can no longer decide the status of their relationships.

to be continued..

contd..

Bureaucrats now presume to tell gays the status of their relationship and courts rule on the division of assets. What gays have previously decided for themselves is now subject to regulation by the State. To top it off, there is no firm definition of de facto, just a mess of notions derived from idealism to be interpreted. Even federal bureaucrats from different government agencies disagree on particular cases and bigamy is legitimised. There already cases where courts have decided that one or more de factos can claim on the income and assets of a marriage.

The same political 'Progressives' who made the mess of de facto arrangements - even students sharing digs can find out later they are regarded as de factos - are now driving gay marriage. However the same 'Progressives' sledge and scoff at marriage anyhow and would see it trashed. The same 'Progressives' who criticise church and State control of marriage and State interference in private relationships are pushing the very institution and State control they say they hate onto gays.

How come the State recognition and State control, and the wedding dress and church that were up to only recently resisted and mocked by gays are now reckoned to be crucial to the psychological health and wellbeing of gays? How did they ever get along before?

Dear Praxidice,

I am not aware of any law in Australia that requires a priest to report the sacraments they perform to the authorities. Is anyone here aware of any such law?

(and if such a law exists, then I will need to marry underground or overseas)

Sexual orientation is not something we choose, but rather, something that is decided for us in the womb and by nature!
Tony Abbott should know this as well as any person can, given he has and grew up with a gay sister!
Every human being extant on the planet has an equal right to pursue personal happiness and sexual gratification.
Repeat, equal rights!
The UK statistics are quite revealing and indicate that those prepared to actively discriminate against equal treatment before the law, are in reality, a very small minority.
And or, those prepared to put aside personal scruples and grant true equality, are a sizeable majority.
Gillard is now being wedged by former PM Rudd, who can see the writing writ large on the wall.
Clearly, the overwhelming bulk of the parliamentary Labour party are in favour of true equality, and see it as an issue that could tip the election results back their way?
Not that that could do much more than reduce the liberal lead, or prevent a rout?
Gillard needs to understand she is being wedged by Rudd and respond to defuse the issue!
Namely, by making true equality an election issue, to be decided by a subsequent referendum, which will still enable those inside the party to wash their hands, or avoid having to set aside personal principles or prejudices?
A proposed referendum could also ask several other yes or no questions.
Moreover, a recent survey indicated a significant portion of electors would be prepared to change their vote, if early childhood, preschool education, were ever to become, a yes or no election issue!
Rhrosty.

[Deleted. Very offensive. Obscene language.]