"Whoever wrote the article suffered an apparent inability to separate objective statements about the goodness of traditional marriage and the nuclear family from subjective judgements about individuals who do not hold the same view."

Inability or failure to distinguish between ideas in issue, and the person advocating them, is virtually the defining characteristic of the left wing.

But if you support people complaining to the 'advertising standards bureau' to try to forcibly prevent people from advertising services promoting marital infidelity, aren't you guilty of the same wrong, only worse?

At least the leftists are only confusing the *idea* of a polemic with the *idea* of the person putting it forward. But you, correct me if I'm wrong, are confusing disapproving an idea you don't like, with physically preventing people from expressing it.

If I don't agree with your views on marriage and family, why should you have the assistance of government to force me into them, or to prevent me from expressing mine?

There is far more threat to society by people advocating aggressive violence to get what they want, than there is from extra-marital infidelity.

Risible rubbish!
Germany went to war at the behest of Her Hitler, and a few dozen of his minions.
The Nazi party represented just a few (one) percent of the German nation?
The rest of Germany, were by and large, very law abiding and very decent Germans, who hearing reports of pogroms and death camps!
Could have been forgiven for believing it the most awful enemy propaganda; given no normal decent human beings could do that; plus the endless official denials and or official propaganda!
Not only that, we can't be asked to bear any responsibility for the deeds of forbears!
No modern day Japanese can be held responsible for the deeds done by a formerly imperial Japan.
Nor can anyone not then born, be made to carry the can for Nazi excesses!
Karma, or so as you sow, so also shall you reap, is a very individual thing.
There is never collective Karma, nor is Jihad, a collective external war, just an internal struggle against our own evil half!
Even there, consider this. There is not enough darkness in the entire world, to extinguish the light of a single candle!
Or, what benefit hath a man, if he should win the entire world, but lose his own immortal soul!
F for fail!
Rhrosty.

Sorry Rhosty, but Hitler was not a 'her', he was a 'Herr'.

Thought I'd just have a little word play.

Pleas don't take offence, I found the article too boring.

In light of all this, why then was I forced to "apologise" for the 'Stolen Generations' because I am a white person. Supposedly culpable, and included as a member of the perpetrators? Even though I am of 'Aboriginal Heritage' mind you, but still tarred with the brush of White Invader/Anglo-Saxon due to my skin colour. Would the British Government apologise today for the forcible removal, and displacement of my white ancestors from their farms and tenancies in Scotland and Ireland ? Only a question mind you, not a demand.

So, let's have a closer look at the main points here.

The argument uses the example of "a company marketing infidelity" to assert that...

>>our society seemingly approves marital infidelity and breakdown<<

An advertisement for a dating site targetting married people is certainly tacky, and the existence of such a service is somewhat distasteful. But that does not, and cannot, lead to the catch-all conclusion that society "approves marital fidelity".

For example, I strongly disapprove of the plethora of advertisements for pay-day loans - Cash Train et al. But while the promotion of usury is still legal, I cannot do anything about it except despair at the gullibility of the public, and the rapacity of the lenders.

[For those unaware, a loan of $250, repaid in two weeks, is subject to an interest comparison rate of over 700%. Fact]

What it most certainly does not show, is that "society approves usury".

The other massive hole in the argument is in the summary statement:

>>Those who hold 'traditional' values are unable to any longer look with certainty to the wider society for support<<

This claims the moral high ground for a whole heap of societal attitudes, including a blanket condemnation of homosexuality. By lumping these together in a bundle that includes "pornography and child slavery", they hope to present their stance as entirely wholesome, instead of which it is merely the same old rag-bag of religiously-driven prejudices.

"They cited the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which continues to state that men and women have the right to marry and found a family."

That would be this sentence, Mr. Toutounji?

"(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution."

The one that neither says nor implies that men and men or women and women do not have the universal human right to marry?

Yet that is the position of the WCF is it not? Seems silly to simultaneously cite the UDHR and selectively ignore it.

"Those who hold 'traditional' values are unable to any longer look with certainty to the wider society for support..." is, ironically, what those nasty ISIL terrorists in Iraq probably keep telling themselves too. But I think the lack of 'traditional' values and certainties are, over time, a necessarily good thing for any society - just ask any emancipated slave. Don't bother asking any ex-slave owner, though.