"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.

Traditional christian values (and applied politics) indeed!
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/cruelty.html
And then there are the horrors of old-time father-knows-best so called family values, and child-rearing practices with their relentless cruelty, the kind promoted by all of the usual right-wing suspects as described here:
http://www.alice-miller.com/books_en.php?page=2
http://www.psychohistory.com
http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

And why not google - the sex lives of popes. And The Criminal History of the Papacy by Tony Bushby.

Well, well... the comments I agree with, the article is a nonsense.

Bernard, it strikes me that you are trying to air brush the WCF. The WCF are very clear about their objectives. It seeks to overturn legislation that provides rights to LGBT people; it also seeks to ban and recriminalise abortions.

Now I am not in favour of homosexuality or abortion for myself, but I don't seek to force my views on other people through the medium of legislation.

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

Bernard, there is a very good reason that the 'traditional values' that the WCF and yourself hold are not supported by the wider community. That is because they are anachronisms and the wider community has moved on.

Daffy duck,
I admit I didn't bother reading Berni Toutnji's article nor your links because despite the undeniable & unforgivable facts obviously in your links, I must admit of thinking that what's around the corner if we don't curb the new invasion will be many times worse.

The Leunig cartoon in todays Age sums up the situation in precise terms.
As do the images to be found at this site, where the "hero", representing every living-breathing-feeling human being is systematically beaten to death.
http://spiritlessons.com/passionofchristpictures.htm

Strangely enough many people, especially "conservative" and/or right-wing Christians consider this to be "good news".

This unspeakably vile snuff/splatter movie was hugely popular at the time of its making/release. It could be said that it was the most potent recent visual communication of what applied right-wing Christian politics is really all about.
This essay describes the political and cultural context of its appearance - cruelty all the way down!
http://logosjournal.com/hammer_kellner

Rhrosty,
The NSDAP membership was capped at five million, they received something like 40% of the vote in the 1933 elections and contra to your post all Germans are held responsible for WW2, 90% of German taxpayers weren't even born in 1945 but they're still paying reparations and are still being vilified in Jewish films, novels and plays.
The allegations of "death camps" were actually enemy propaganda, Soviet propaganda to be specific, there were no "death camps" on German soil for Germans to see anyway and since 2002 the unchallenged figure (Meyer 2002) is 271,000-320,000 total deaths in custody, similar to the Red Cross estimates.
When I say unchallenged it means that Meyer wrote an essay containing those estimates and published it in Germany, a complaint was made against him as minimising the death toll is illegal in that country yet the German authorities declined to prosecute him.

"Those who hold 'traditional' values are unable to any longer look with certainty to the wider society for support; they will instead be labeled as 'anti' one-thing or another."

Yes: anti-reason; anti-compassion; anti-equality; anti-progress -- because they are. The fundamental question your organisation needs to answer is: "Why should people be prevented from doing what they want to do when this harms nobody else?" and unless and until you can come up with a satisfactory answer, the 'labelling' will continue to be perfectly justified.

The WCF may claim to support traditional values, and I suppose they do to an extent, but at heart they are only another set of extremists who do NOT represent the silent majority of heterosexual married Christians, let alone the secular population.
Most of us "norms" are quite comfortable with the things the WCF opposes, gay rights, abortion etc, we are secure in our own identity and lives and willing to allow others to feel the same, as long as they don't attempt to force their ways on us we see no need to force ours on them, to put it simply, live and let live.
I believe a m/f marriage is the best available option for raising children, but it isn't the only one and it doesn't automatically follow that any others are bad by definition. We all know they're not.
A large highly involved extended family and social group (clan/tribe/village) is our genetic "norm" for child-rearing but we've unfortunately grown beyond that socially.
All that being said however, the media and the PC brigade have much to answer for, their contributions to the discussion serves nout but to muddy the waters and inflame passions best left a'sleeping.
Like so many extremists, of whatever "ism", the WCF would be a lonely little voice in the wilderness were it not for the sensationalist bent of the media and the over-reaction of their opponents.
You know what I miss most in every aspect of this 21st century?
"Quiet Dignity".
What was once quite common and held up as the epitome of personal and social behaviour is now lost to us, one only seems to find it fading gently away in the lonely streets of suburbia and out beneath the wheeling stars of the bush, it has singularly failed to take root in the toxic soil of modern life and we are all the poorer for that passing.

The same ferals who protested (backed by the abc/sbs crowd) at the family event are the ones happy to allow mosques to be built throughout our country. They are silent at the abuse of young girls and remain blissfully ignorant of the ideology that treats women very second class. They are Christophobes above all else and what they hate is that children are far better off growing up with a loving dad and mum than they are in any other situation. They are offended because their perverted lifestyles and ideologies are just that.

Well done woolly.(Willy Wonker wonder worker) You've managed to prove my often malfunctioning keyboard is quite old, as I am; plus I'm permanently partially blind. [Oh I say,wealy, wun of our R's is missing! Luckily we weren't sitting on it at the time]
You should be so proud! Well done woolly! Wealy. Jolly good show, what?
As Indeed Her Hitler would have been, and given his promulgated personal predilections; Her Hitler doesn't seem too inappropriate?
And in good company, it would seem, along with Her Himmler, and a huge hirsute Herman, left leaning, going going gone Goring!
All too effeminate, it would seem woolly, to wealy front up and weap the whirlwind they created.
Never mind, they can't escape Karma.
Which wolls on and on until like wipples in a pond, [after a stone is thwown,] will weach their complete outer limits.
The pond in this case, a hypothetical universe?
Don't take offense, I'm just playing with offensive words, effendi!
You'll have a nice day now, y'hear.
Rhrosty.

Pericles

"I strongly disapprove of the plethora of advertisements for pay-day loans - Cash Train et al... For those unaware, a loan of $250, repaid in two weeks, is subject to an interest comparison rate of over 700%."

But not quite strongly enough to lend them your money at the rate you think would be fair, I take it?

You are probably unaware of the existence of these companies or their advertisements, Jardine K. Jardine - not really your demographic, after all.

>>But not quite strongly enough to lend them your money at the rate you think would be fair, I take it?<<

These folk are in the business of lending small amounts of money to the sort of people who find themselves short of a bob or two, with pay day still a week away. They don't particularly enjoy going into debt in this manner, but for one reason or another, they are forced to resort to taking out a short-term loan, at mammoth interest rates.

All completely legal and above board, but also in a very real sense, predatory on the weaknesses of others. The parallel I was drawing was that the existence of these businesses does not demonstrate that "society" approves of predatory lending practices, but nor should they be censored.

The author of the piece was suggesting that the act of advertising a perfectly legal business was somehow demonstrating that the same society "approves marital infidelity and breakdown".

I'm really surprised I have to explain this to you. You are normally quite quick on the uptake.

Marriage-a societal construct devised in the early centuries.

We should look at the reason societies invented marriage in the
first place.

Remember the days of the foundlings, when it was common practice
to leave babies in baskets on the door steps of hospitals and churches.

They didn't have modern ways of detection back then so it would
have been very hard to find who left the babies there.

The state and churches, found themselves the carers and also financially responsible for
feeding, clothing, schooling & the housing of these abandoned babies for at least the first 15years of
the children's lives. Hence the nasty children's work houses they had back in those days. Well described by
Charles Dickens.

The church because they preached that they were holy men could not
be seen to not take these babies in.

It was an age of orphanages and work-houses for children.

I believe the State and Church found a way to stop this drain on the state and church coffers, (remember this was a time of no contraception and severe hardship for people with many children. So they abandoned children they could no longer care for in droves.

So the State and the church decided to make it legally binding for the parents of the children to stay and care for them, especially financially, this was given a name--marriage.

This also suited the churches just fine
too, because they didn't want the cost or responsiblity either.
So it conveniently became part of their doctrine that marriage was
sanctioned by god and it was a sin to diss0lve marriage.

Like everything it was all about the money, taxes and the like.

Marriage a union put in place by God-rubbish!

Based on the comments so far I'd have to agreed with the author. This is a stupid nation in the sense that it is incapable of even dicussing rationally the damage being wrought by such things as alcohol, pornography and disregard for loyalty and commitment in marriage. It's a society that does not have a strong moral code to defend itself from those making a fast buck by encouraging people to discard noble instincts and virtues in favor of their base instincts.
Alcohol is the root of so much harm yet our society accepts these costs.
Portraying humans, usually female, as objects of sexual gratification is also socially accepted but somehow our children are to be raised to think otherwise.
And marriage. A contract where male and female can engage in intimate and sexual relations and conceive with clear undertakings in terms of rights and responsibilities towards themselves and their children. Obviously this too is something that this society has discarded for no apparent reason.
The only point where I disagree with the author is in the use of the future test. Society IS reaping what it has sown.