Because it is not a relationship, it is an exploitation; and that is a typical rightwing idiotic question

Dear Lyle Shelton,

You lied. Rudd did not bully the pastor. I saw the debate, and Rudd politely stated his position.

You are probably correct. Same sex marriage was not a vote winner. However, I think it was a reasonable position. Possibly, Rudd was for it because he thought it was the right position to take whether or not it was a vote winner. Sometimes politicians act on principle.

Civil marriage is not a religious matter. I am married to a woman, and I am quite happy to continue our union. If people of the same sex get married I don't see how it will affect my marriage. I also don't see how it will affect the churches, synagogues or mosques who do not wish to sanction those unions. They don't have to.

However, I wonder why it was necessary for you to lie. Is that moral?

Is polite disagreement with another person bullying? Your lie does not make your case better.

SSM is a dead issue for the next three years. I was really pleased to read in the article that the Christian Lobby is upset about the departure from bi-partisanship on foreign aid and, presumably the cuts announced last week. I hope they will use their influence to lobby the Government.

Good question Jardine. The way I understand it, homosexual marriage proponents, say its simply a question of love. So if gender and the way partners couple their bodies (think where raison d'etre is anal sex and one man sucking another man's willy ) is of no relevance to marriage why should the number of people in it be?

As to Kipp's comment, there can be exploitation in any relationship. If one person in a polyamorous relationship of three people, is bisexual or a polyamorous relationship consists of 2 men and 2 women, where is the obvious exploitation? Whilst in the business of degrading the meaning of marriage you might just as well go the full hog.

Multiple marriage with the consent of the parties is no more intrinsically exploitative than any other marriage with the consent of the parties.

If outlawing gay marriage is sheer blind prejudice, why is outlawing mulitiple marriage?

In fact the position for bigamists and polygamists is far worse than for gay marriage, because not only can't bigamists and polygamists have their second or later marriages recognised by government, but their exchange of commitments is actually a criminal offence, unlike the situation with gays.

The whole argument for "marriage equality" is that marriage should not be limited in its definition by sexual preference. If it's sheer blind prejudice not to register gay marriages, how can the criminalisation of polygamous marriages be in any better position.

Notice how Kipp doesn't provide any reason and just descends instantly into circularity and personal abuse? I realise this is stock-standard left-wing style, but at least *try* and think, even if you find it very difficult.

@ Roscop

Polyamorous families and marriages already exist in Australia, its just not talked about because its taboo. You paint a picture that polyamorous will only happen once gay marriage is legal, but in reality polyamorous marriages have been happening in Australia for a number of years. So its all very convenient for you to insinuate and link polyamorous relationships with homosexuality, and at the same time totally ignore all the heterosexual polyamorous relationships which are currently happening. And for the record I don't support polyamorous marriages.