You know what they say -- if you don't want to be humiliated for holding ridiculous views, then don't hold ridiculous views. Or at least, don't espouse them in public.

Whatever your cherished fantasies about the secret messages your personal Sky Fairy whispers to you in private, you should know that if you go public with them you will be asked for real reasons, just like a grown-up person. And if you can't supply them, too bad for you.

Jon J, was your post supposed to be giving a reason why 2 poofters should be able to be legally married?

Same-sex marriage should go to those same-sex people who want to marry.

Actually not. There is nowhere to go because same-sex marriage IS already in their hands.

No referendum is needed because same-sex people can ALREADY marry and need not ask for anybody's permission in doing so.

What a fool wants a piece of paper from a government official telling them "now you are married"? Don't they already know in their heart whether they are married or not?

"humiliation"? "ostracising"?

Nah. One could just as easily say Matt Prater asked a question seeking to humiliate Rudd, and just got a spirited robust reply.

Besides, the Bible's New Testament endorses slavery -

Colossians 3:22-25 (NIV)
22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24 .. It is the Lord Christ you are serving.

Ephesians 6:5-8 (NIV)
5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.

1 Timothy 6 (NIV)
6 All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. 2 Those who have believing masters should not show them disrespect just because they are fellow believers. Instead, they should serve them even better because their masters are dear to them as fellow believers

1 Peter 2:18-25 (NIV)
18 Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19 For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. 20 ... if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God.

Titus 2:9-10 NIV)
9 Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, 10 and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.

"Same-sex marriage does lead to same-sex parenting and there is a huge issue in my view of the state sanctioning the idea that a certain class of children will be denied access to one or other of their biological parents."

Same-sex parenting is presently being practiced in Australia outside marriage! without legal protections for the children that marriage affords.

It is likely there are very few children that are being, or will be, "denied access to one or other of their biological parents".

Probably the same proportion as for heterosexual separations or divorces.

In his first posting McReal pointed out how most/all of these self-righteous Christians who are jumping up and down in faux angst in response to this storm-in-a-teacup "incident" are essentially Biblically illiterate and therefore very selective in the way that they thus defend their ignorance,their "morality" and pre-judgements on those who advocate a change in the previous politically enforced status-quo.
A status quo which is no longer culturally tenable as this essay points out:
http://www.adidaupclose.org/Crazy_Wisdom/freedomofchoice.html
The above essay was written in support of the thesis enunciated in the book by William Contryman titled Dirt Sex & Greed
Plus this essay describes how conventional marriages have almost nothing to do with love or truly adult emotional-sexual maturity.
http://www.adidaupclose.org/Crazy_Wisdom/anthony.html
Such emotional-sexual immaturity is thus passed on from generation to generation.
Thus creating the situation described here:
http://zakherys.tripod.com/greven.htm
Such being the way that the sins-of-the-fathers are inevitably beaten into the flesh of each new generation of children
Both of the above references feature a summary of the most intensive prolonged entirely non-squeamish and non-puritannical investigation into the all important matter of the emotional-sexual dimensions of our existence-being that has ever been done.

being totally wrong and trashing the whole covenant of marriage for decades the homosexual lobby in having failed there, now want to pervert the covenant. No matter how many god deniers scream and shout, the Author of marriage will always determine its makeup. Lying will always be lying and perversion will always be perversion even if sanctioned by the State.

Mr Rudd demonstrated how much he is a slave to the applause of men. This is one of numerous flip/flop positions Rudd/Labour took in desperation to turn around the polls. Personally I would count it an honor to be criticised by the ABC leftie progressives. It is usually the leftie progressives regressive policies that cause most of the problems in society and then they are dumb enough to ask why. MOre porn, more perversion, family breakdown, fatherless homes and the left are dumb enough to ask why society is filled with violence. They fail to see their permissive perverted 'progressive'policies have been a major contributor. Oh that's right they are so righteous because they care for the environment. Yea!

Some agree with same sex marriage, some disagree - everyone thinks they are in the majority, so what's wrong with taking to the people in a referendum? Every day our press tell us that those in favour of same sex marriage are a majority, so they will win any referendum, right? let's do it and stop the bickering! As for those who seem to be blaming the bible for endorsing slavery, who was it who led the charge to wipe out slavery in the west - atheist evolutionists, or bible believing Christians? Please, disagree all you like but can't we discuss things like adults?

Tomorrow is the referendum on Same Sex Marriage.
Vote NO

As The author has correctly stated-

"...a flourish at the beginning of the election campaign when Mr Rudd put it front and centre with a bold promise to legislate within 100 days if Labor was re-elected.
...
If the Coalition wins, it can rightly assess that this election was in part a referendum on same-sex marriage."

For me PM Rudd's most memorable speech in the election campaign was Monday night on Q & A to Ps. Matt Prater.

OK-so lets vote on the issue tomorrow.

There will be no need for a subsequent referendum.

A referendum is a very expensive undertaking Captain, so I don't understand why we haven't added questions like this to the current election process in order to save money?

We could ask questions like :
"Do you want euthanasia legalised?
Do you want gay marriage legalised?
Do you want any reference to religion removed from political issues?

If, as the religious or homophobic people seem to think, most people would disagree with these questions, then why the problem with asking them at election time?

I still don't have an answer from people like Runner as to why a gay couple marrying would have ANY effect on heterosexual marriage?
What is the hysteria about, other than an old book written by humans, not invisible gods, saying homosexuality is an abomination?

A referendum on this issue would likely end for all time, the official discrimination against people who dare to be born different.
There are people out there, who sincerely believe we can choose our sexuality!
Why is that so, and why are they so adamant in that belief?
Perhaps it's because they can? And therefore judge all others by their own personally proven "normality"?
Part of the problem is their belief that they can speak for God and judge others? With self appointed authority!
Or put another way, with absolutely no God given authority whatsoever!
The rest of us are stuck with the sexuality we are born with; and, there are no circumstances where we could chose to be different, except say, with a loaded gun held to the head?
Nor do we believe we can exercise some self appointed judgement of others, based entirely on seriously dubious medieval belief!
Belief taken from the pages of ancient tombs, penned in all cases by mere men, said to be spoken to by the voice of God, who in some cases appears to legitimize or advocate for slavery, or the stoning of so called adulterers, without a single shred of actual proof or evidence!
Today we would likely incarcerate the same people in special institutions for the incurable or criminally insane!
These same people must also be removed from our schools, before they can poison the minds of innocent children, particularly those experiencing puberty, and some unusual, but still normal sexual attractions.
Politicians, who can't in all conscience give others a conscience vote, can wash their hands of any responsibility, for introducing change some of their adherents disapprove of, by throwing it back to the people.
Where no doubt our usually decent people, will make the right choice and give others the rights they accept as their birthright, to all others!
Rhrosty.

Dear McReal,

<<
1 Peter 2:18-25 (NIV)
18 Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19 For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. 20 ... if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God.
>>

I think that Peter has made a good point:

If you are a slave in a society that enforces slavery, and have no way whatsoever to un-slave yourself, then it's a great advice to be a good slave rather than a bad slave, to do your work happily rather than be whining and whinging. Sure, if you find a way to escape do so, especially if you can do it without placing your family and your spiritual community in harm's way, but was that possible at the time?

One should make the best of their circumstances and any predicament one finds themselves in, no matter how harsh, can be used for spiritual elevation. I knew someone who despite of all horrors, used her time in Auschwitz as a growth experience, who instead of coming out bitter and broken, emerged when the camp was liberated happy ever after, not a single sad thought for the rest of her long life.

In light of that, please read also the rest of the verses you quoted and you will find that these are excellent advices of both practical and spiritual great value.

A referendum is not a suitable way of determining issues of rights or equality as, ethically, rights or issues of equality are Not issues of majority rule.

The author is totally wrong here, this election wasn't "in part a referendum on same-sex marriage", same sex marriage was the ONLY issue in this election. From Q&A to 100 days to his 'front page' change of heart to rainbow labor to Abbott's Christian School kerfuffle to Get Up saturating the internet with marriage equality poignancy, tomorrow's victor will reflect Australia's view on governmental intrusion into ancient customs.

This topic requires courage from commentators and policy makers alike. It takes diplomacy and respect from all sides to resolve what needs to be said and done. Confrontation is necessary, but to arrive at a decision that best represents the people, is the right outcome. We have been mislead on homosexual marriage, it is not genetic, the children most affected by these relationships will not live in the best environment for parental guidance. Strategically, positions have been taken up by gay supporters who change the law and discriminate against law-abiding citizens for taking a stand against this lifestyle. Forget the personalities, look at the heart of the person and the reason they speak up. This article determines direction by advocating a better future for families.

Dear Pat,

Correct. This election is NOT a referendum. It's about 1000 other things, for me primarily about stopping the NBN. The gay-marriage issue doesn't even come into consideration.

Dear McReal,

<<A referendum is not a suitable way of determining issues of rights or equality as, ethically, rights or issues of equality are Not issues of majority rule.>>

You would be 100% right if you spoke about individual freedoms. "Rights" however are different: One's freedom is inherent, God-given, while rights are issued by humans (usually as petty-change after they robbed away your freedom). What this gay-marriage discussion is about has nothing to do with individual/personal freedom, but rather with the expansion of a certain government-service (to include same-sex people), a service relating to a private and intimate matter of the heart, a service which should not have been offered by the state in the first place.

Dear Runner,

<<Lying will always be lying and perversion will always be perversion even if sanctioned by the State.>>

EVEN IF?

You should know better by now that anything sanctioned by the State is most likely a perverse lie. What saddens me, is why the Church, who was supposed all along to be the body of Christ, was laying for so many centuries in the same filthy bed with the State.

However, with your comment above, it seems that this unholy and adulterous alliance is about to break - so perhaps the second-coming of Christ is not that far away after all!

Congratulations Lyle on a well-balanced piece. Any reasonable person should be concerned that the Prime Minister made a humble pitch to the Christian constituency at 7.30 pm and then, 3 hours later, proceeded to express his true views in a belligerent manner to a single Christian in the presence of a hostile audience. It is bizarre that the Prime Minister could conduct himself so ungraciously on national television to a person who views are the same as the laws of the land.

The former Labor Attorney-General has also expressed his views on the difficult path that lies ahead. Ultimately you are correct Lyle to point out that this is an important issue that needs to go to the people and the people ought to be given the opportunity to debate the issue thoroughly without being subjected to the customary abuse and name calling of the extremely vocal minority that are active in social media circles. The proper rules of debating should apply – every person should be entitled to express their view and provide reasons for their view. Just as importantly those who hurl abuse should be deemed to have lost the debate. That way we can maintain civility in the debate.

Matt Prater clearly thought that his fundamentalist view of marriage was the only valid Christian attitude. Kevin Rudd showed that it is not. I think Matt Prater was mortified because he assumed that he was going to be delivering a 'gotcha' moment on national television and it went badly wrong for him.

Quite right, Longy...

"We have been mislead on homosexual marriage, it is not genetic, the children most affected by these relationships will not live in the best environment for parental guidance."

'We' should demand the retention of heterosexual marriage which has traditionally demonstrated its monopoly (and ability) throughout history to produce homosexuals.

Youtube Video: http://youtu.be/9uBUZKD5Ago
Is not about Kevin right or wrong, he just want to ask a Christian personal question to someone.

Well Matt Prater Pastor is original LNP supporter, how do you know that?
simply go facebook type Matt Prater, in his friend lists search "MP", there only Liberal members supporters he has, non of a Labor member you can find there, what is it wrong? Obviously long before he already the LNP supporter and representing them use this case to share to the believer, so they may believe that Rudd is wrong and shows that he cares about biblical teaching, and the followers of the church and the Christian watched on the TV camera will see him as a hero image that willing to stand up say something, make audience think he is a righteous man, but we don’t know what really behind his purpose, we must know who he support from the very beginning, seeking for his own interest, we can’t decide others life only people who decide it when they know the biblical truth, for God to judge not you and I to judge them, controlling over their life, however we can share, pray, support with love and mercy with unconditional love.
Matthew 7:1-4
1Timothy1:5-11

, how can you really tell he is really stand for the Gay Marriage matter, or he just use his community to play this voting game,

We need to know what is his really purpose and intention behind it, I'm also a Christian but I'm not a fool, we need to discern and understand his true purpose behind and there are people using the leadership role to misuse his power. that just a shock to me unbelievable!.

I don't think this same sex marriage issue should go to the people,
I have nothing againts same sex marriage, but I don't think it should
be an agenda in the federal or national level, if its under the Family Law/marriage Law, the Parliament should pass it instead to the
State to either legalize it, per state level or block the issue.. and I believed some state had already legalize it, so whats the push into the national level.. I don't agree that it should be national unless of course if majority of australians are on same sex relationships.

The bible does not say slavery is a natural condition. Rudd is smart enough to know this, so I can only presume he misquoted the Bible on purpose.
The Bible does exhort people to make the most out of whatever circumstance they are in, as per the Bible passages posted by McReal - the very fact that the apostle Paul needed to encourage slaves to make the most of their situation would be that Christians were going against the status quo of the time, and claiming that all human beings are of equal value to God, and deserve treatment as equals.
James 2:2-4 (NIV) "For example, suppose someone comes into your meeting dressed in fancy clothes and expensive jewelry, and another comes in who is poor and dressed in dirty clothes. If you give special attention and a good seat to the rich person, but you say to the poor one, "You can stand over there, or else sit on the floor" - well, doesn't this discrimination show that your judgements are guided by evil motives?"
1 Timothy 1:10 (NIV) "The law is for people who are sexually immoral, or who practise homosexuality, or are slave traders, liars, promise breakers, or who do anything else that contradicts the wholesome teaching that comes from the glorious Good News...."
Galatians 3:28 (NIV) "There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus."
Christians are not saying people who practice homosexual acts are worse than anyone else, or that they are beyond God's love and grace.
Romans 4:23 (NIV) "For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God's glorious standard."

Christians I respect them for their beliefs, though when the extreme right wing religious fundamentalists want to impose their beliefs on others; they have no right of respect.
To those who are supporters of Matt Prater, please explain if marriage to you is so sacrosanct, why did Matt Prater divorce his first wife, and marry another woman.
One trusts there where no children in the first marriage, because of the trauma these children would have experienced.

"Once was"! One hopes that your mother loved you, as it appears
nobody else does !

For those trying to quote the bible as if it has some sort of "meaning". I agree, and disagree, as explained by this game show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk

Tony Abbott is against a national referendum/plebiscite on marriage equality, he is also against a conscience vote on marriage equality. All signs suggest that Tony Abbott will stick his head in the sand and pretend that gay marriage is not an issue, and as a result the support for gay marriage will build and build so much so that the next government after the Coalition (probably Labor) will likely have no choice but to legalise gay marriage.

Galaxy Research polling (2009-2012) shows:

64% of Australians support marriage equality,
A majority of Christians (53%) support marriage equality,
76% of Coalition voters want Abbott to allow a conscience vote,
75% believe the reform is inevitable, and
81% of young people (18-24 years) support marriage equality.

These figures are a significant advance on 2004 figures, when a Newspoll commissioned by SBS found that 38% of Australians supported the reform.

Jason84,
So why not just hold a referendum on the abolition of the marriage act then we could have a generic marriage licence that you pick up from the post office and take to whatever ceremony the two parties agree upon?
Ah but this isn't about "equality" or even "Gays" is it, it's about East vs West, it's about creating an issue with which to bait nasty old Russia and the nasty old Orientals. Everyone asks "Why now?", why is "Gay" marriage suddenly an issue when the original Gay liberation movement was dedicated to destroying the oppressive institution of marriage? This "movement' is just another geopolitical public relations exercise, realistically if the current rate of Third World migration into White countries continues we will be more likely to see homosexuality once again outlawed in a decade or two.
Maybe 64% of White, Liberal educated Australians support Gay marriage but 100% of Third World Christians, Muslims and Hindus are opposed to it

<Everyone asks "Why now?", why is "Gay" marriage suddenly an issue when the original Gay liberation movement was dedicated to destroying the oppressive institution of marriage?>

Exactly.

You could also have added that the feminists and 'Progressives' who are pushing gay marriage also despise what they insultingly denounce as 'traditional' marriage. They would ban it in a trice, EXCEPT for lesbians and gays of course, where it is authenticate and legitimise their 'love'. It is a lever, a bargaining chip for such activists, nothing more. Oh, and a way of hitting back at Christian religions (but Islam is OK, strangely enough).

But then they are opposed to families and young Aussies couples having children too, referring to them as 'breeders'(!). Their cultural cringe is the diversity-we-have-to-have' to swamp out 'traditional' (that word again!) Australian culture.

Today is Rubbish Day. It is the day for the national clean-up and good riddance, don't slam the door on the way out.

Oh no, so now we have the anti- everyone-who-isn't-a-white-male-supporter, and the anti-feminist fellow, wading in to a debate on same-sex marriage!

Go away boys and start your own threads.

Same-sex marriage will be inevitable, regardless of middle-aged white heterosexuals , and anti-feminist's, pathetic protests.

And the sky won't fall in...

""You could also have added that the feminists and 'Progressives' who are pushing gay marriage also despise what they insultingly denounce as 'traditional' marriage. They would ban it in a trice, EXCEPT for lesbians and gays of course ""

Posted by onthebeach, Saturday, 7 September 2013 1:07pm

Rubbish!!

Suse,
I'm not against same sex marriage per se and I don't want to live in a society where people with eccentric and non conforming views and lifestyles are stifled,I gave my proposal for resolving the issue in the last post, abolish the marriage act.
We've been over this enough times, you know as well as I do that Third World immigration makes "progressive" causes less and less likely to succeed, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
What I also pointed out is that the same people who are promoting Gay marriage are also promoting war with Syria and Iran and supporting the Syrian "rebels", this is a fact, all the mainstream Left groups in this country openly support the Al Nusra/Al Qaeda insurgents.
The issue of Gay Marriage and human rights more broadly are being used as part of the PR to support U.S and NATO domination of the Mideast, Africa and Central Asia and undeniably being used to provoke Russia.
This is your side Suse, all the NeoCons are progressives now LOL.

What are you on about Jay?
I support gay marriage but I don't support war with Syria, and I don't see any connection with the 2 issues.

You are sweeping too many people into the one basket on these issues.
Many people differ on all sorts of subjects, regardless of where they come from.
Where do you get your ideas from? Lol.

Suseonline, "Go away boys and start your own threads"

Suseonline has spoken, "Do as I say" and "Never you mind". -Authoritarian Left that would ban everything they don't agree with.

No-one doubts your dislike of men and your passion for gay activism. Perhaps obsessive is a more apt adjective for both. Whoops, I left out the third of your trifecta, your adoration of Islam.

Do you ever feel you are in a deep rut that you can't climb out of? Like an old scratched record locked into the same loop? LOL

Dear Jay,

<<I gave my proposal for resolving the issue in the last post, abolish the marriage act.>>

I support this abolition wholeheartedly.

But looking back at what you wrote:

<<we could have a generic marriage licence that you pick up from the post office>>

A license? that seems a contradiction - if there is no marriage act, then marriage is a completely private matter. Whether you marry someone of the opposite gender; of the same gender; a rock; or two penguins and a duck, you need not answer to anyone of the government.

Please explain.

yuyutsu,
If we're to retain a state and a legal system we still need some recognition of marriage as a legal partnership so some formal documentation would still be required, even if we did as you say which we might call a Libertarian solution I'd bet most people would still want some form of nuptial contract to secure their financial interests.

Suse,
I can't explain it in simpler term than I have, all the people whose ideologies support Gay Marriage also supported the U.S/NATO proxy forces in Libya, Egypt,Bahrain, Morocco and now Syria, the colour revolutions, FEMEN, Pussy Riot, Kony 2012 and all the other imperialist PR exercises. Gay Marriage is a meme, in the true sense of the term,it's U.S imperial propaganda.

J of M, you are making the mistake of assuming that support for gay marriage an ideological package. People these days pick and chose their causes and don't swallow whole ideologies. For example, I am in favour of gay marriage because I regard it as a social justice issue, don't think it will harm anyone. I also believe that the west shouldn't mess with the Middle East. Pussy Riot is just a news item to me and I had to look up FEMEN and the colour revolutions to find out what they were.

Dear Jay,

It is no secret that I would like to reduce government interference in our lives to the minimum.

Nevertheless, if you believe that the state of Australia should provide a service of backing and enforcing "legal partnership" arrangements, then why not make it just that?

The advantages are enormous: anyone who currently cannot legally marry will be able to use that "legal partnership" service (or whatever else you like to call it), including same-sex couples (with no opposition!), brothers and sisters and already-married people (including people who married in another country where they cannot obtain a divorce or be punished if they did). Moreover, such a partnership could be entered by more than two people, so for example a Kibbutz could thus enforce the financial bond between its members.

Also, that releases de-facto or even married couples who are not interested in a financial partnership from having one enforced upon them. I knew for example a lady who had a lover, both in their 70s, that was very careful never to sleep more than 3 nights a week in her lover's place - for otherwise she would lose her age-pension. They had a romantic, but not a financial relationship, so what right had the government to jump into their bed?

@ Jay Of Melbourne

The reason gay marriage is now seen as a major issue is simply because the majority of heterosexuals support it. John Howard was only able to ban gay marriage because back then roughly only 38% supported gay marriage. Twenty years ago I would have laughed at anybody who even suggested the idea of men marrying men. Also another reason why gay marriage is now an issue is because more people accept homosexuality as a natural thing, and understand that people are born gay. Finally, when Coalition/Greens supporters realised that Julia Gillard was against gay marriage, Coalition/Greens supporters then turned gay marriage into a major issue to make Julia Gillard look bad because at the time Tony Abbott had admitted on National TV that he was threatened by homosexuality. Now that Tony Abbott is PM, expect the issue of marriage equality to be virtually invisible in News Limited newspapers.