Homosexuals, a small minority of the population, can do as they please in private, can talk about themselves in public, and have any sort of relationships they wish to have – except marriage. Marriage is clearly and legally defined, and it should not be changed to suit a minority. Politicians, as usual, think that they should be able to make decisions to change the status quo based on their own ideas. They should not do so without consulting their electorates. However it is assumed by homosexuals and their apologists that vociferous public rants and lobbying by a minority will be enough to force politicians to allow gay “marriage” at some time in the future. Given the appalling way that our politicians have trashed democracy in Australia, there is a real fear that this will happen.

People often say, “What difference will it make to you if homosexuals are permitted to ‘marry’?” The answer, of course, is nothing individually, but a hell of a lot to society and what we think of our society. There is already too much weight given to the tantrums of individuals and anti-social minorities in what is supposed to be a democracy. Any surrendering by politicians to a way of life that is not natural, just for a few lousy votes, could very well be the last nail in the coffin of civilised society. Homosexuals (they are not ‘gay’ in any sense of the word) are already in our faces too much; and it is democracy that allows them to carry on about their affliction and demand that the rest of us bow down to them. It is also democracy that allows the rest of us to say that they are entitled to do as they please without interfering with us or bring down our society, but do not dare to try institutionalising their way of life. We can also say that they are childish, self-centred bores for they way they carry on.

A majority doesn’t support marriage ‘equality’. Australians have become indifferent, and that’s another problem to be solved.

Marriage equality? No Rodney,marriage DIVERSITY. The laws will probably change but the result will be many variations of marriage,not one:
Heterosexual Male/Female.
Heterosexual Female/Female
Heterosexual Male/Male
Homosexual Female/Female
Homosexual Male/Male
Heterosexual Male/Homosexual Female
Heterosexual Female/Homosexual Male

I'm sick of typing so I won't get into the bisexual,queer and transgender variants but from a society with one form of marriage will arise a society with over a dozen forms of marriage.
And just because the idea of two heterosexual people of the same gender seeking to marry sounds far fetched doesn't mean it won't happen, now is that equal to any other type of marriage given that the motivations behind all these unions are different?
I would also assume that if such legislative changes were made that the LGBTIQ acronym will be amended to HLGBTIQ because all things being equal so to speak it ought to include the "H" for Heterosexual right Rodney?

Hey, Jay, we are throwing out the baby with the bath water to please all the growingly, sexually-confused people.

Is this how the New Year is to start? Does anything mean anything any more?

What would you call a person who is sexually drawn towards mushrooms? A Mushy-Humper-Crumper?

Our world gets sicker by the day!

In truth and in fact, 'marriage equality' is the loss of homosexual rights. Loss of freedom to do what they choose.

'Gay Pride' activists are young Turks with attitude and no sense of history. It is all about them. They have no appreciation of the valued 'outlaw' queer lifestyle. They have sold gays out to the political 'Progressives' whose socialism decrees State control of everything and who are constantly dabbling in social re-engineering for the goals of international socialism.

There is no surprise at all that the most strident supporters of 'gay marriage' are radical feminists and declared political 'Progressives' aka Fabian Socialists, who openly declare that they would dump marriage tomorrow if given a change. As if either movement has a soft spot for male gays. That is laughable. They are about their own secondary agendas as usual.

The institutionalisation of gays, the State regulation and control of their relationships, has already been achieved through the back door changes affecting de factos. The (culture) war has already been won by the political 'Progressives' as far as regulating the private affairs of gays is concerned.

Where gays could previously form and break relationships as they wished, gays are now subject to the same family law affecting heterosexuals whether they like it or not. There is escape from that. They are corralled after being led by the nose.

Bluntly, government bureaucrats and courts now mull over and decide the status of their once private relationships, and public servants and courts also decide when those 'de facto' relationships are over and how their income and assets are to be distributed on parting ways.

Fill out this form an you will be told what the status of your relationship is, whether you agree with that or not.

to be continued..

contd..

Older queers - before they became 'gays', might remember a time when they lived on the edge, away from the regimented and controlled 'straights'. When their private relationships were not pried into by government bureaucrats and courts, when they themselves decided the status of their relationships and could go about their lives out of public scrutiny, and when they themselves were adult enough to be capable to decide and agree on who owned what.

'Gay marriage' is just the icing on the cake as far as the radical feminists and political 'Progressives' are concerned. Gays are corralled by State regulations, after being led by the nose. The older queers, especially the jazz-loving social outlaws must roll their eyes at the arrogant stupidity of gay activists.

Gays only ever wanted to be left alone to get on with their lives, safely and without interference. But that is the exact opposite of what the constantly interfering radical feminists and political 'Progressives' are about.

'Gay Pride' were sold a pup (hubris is their Achilles' Heel). The lawyers are laughing all of the way to the bank.

Marriage is an intrinsically dangerous and expensive occupation which should not be visited on anyone: hetero, homo, transgender, transsexual, hermaphrodites or domestic pets.