Stone age views belong in the stone age. Christians need to focus on pain and misery they have caused and are causing, and let the rest of us live our lives in freedom and peace.

Where was your care for the children when you covered up the rapes and molestation?

'Stone age views belong in the stone age.' thats exactly why we should stop promoting perversion. Rome found out the hard way.

Well yes, it ought to be all about the kids!

Particularly those millions wasting their young lives away in orphanages around the world, or worse in completely dysfunctional homes where there is a mum and a dad!

Better those kids be given a voice and asked if they'd rather be raised in an environment that loves them and respects the rights of the child!

Heterosexual couples that just get together for a good time, may find themselves in charge of a few unwanted kids. And don't the kids know it! And every day of their childhood!

Or find they really have nothing in common and go their separate ways! Around 40% of Australian families? So much for the input of a dad!

Of course it would be ideal to be raised in the bosom of a loving family, where the dad's role is recognized and respected, rather than being treated with ribald scorn or trivialized!

And if DNA testing were made mandatory before child support could be claimed, how many of those claims would fail?

Better the child, particularly those unwanted ones, could be raised in a single sex family that really wanted them, and provided every advantage!

Even so, marriage is just a word, which could just as easily be replaced by the wedding act, for the purpose of same sex unions.

We simply cannot discriminate because people are born left handed or different!

And given that difference is biological rather than choice, why must we deny them what we take for granted as our own birthright!

Get past the semantics and the contrived schism; and just get it done! Rhrosty.

It's simply not true that "Legislating a new definition of marriage requires children to forfeit a parent". And it's the association of opposition to gay marriage with these bogus arguments that make changing the definition of marriage seem inevitable!

This isn't about how children relate to their parents, it's about how adults relate to each other and how society views that. It's about whether we collectively believe that spending the rest of your life with someone of the opposite sex is no better than spending it with someone of the same sex. You should be making an effort to counteract the Politically Correct view of the word (that people are either straight or gay). Instead by your illogical and sometimes even hateful claims, you have advanced it.

ACL and other groups muted voices in regard to our unnecessarily adversarial Family Law and Child support schemes makes a mockery of their claims that opposition to same sex marriage is mostly about the rights of the children to have both parents playing meaning full roles in the children's lives.

While ACL are not speaking up strongly about systems that provide often significant financial gains to one parent to isolate children from the other parent following a breakup of the parents relationship I take their commentary on the interests and rights of children in the same sex marriage debate as dishonest spin rather than any heartfelt interest in ensuring that children are raised in the best of situations.

R0bert

Ah Runner , always on the wrong side of reality.Rome fell when the Christians took over.

Aidan is right, marriage equality does not affect the rights of children or of gay couples to have them. Lyle’s implication that children will be wrested from their parents and forcibly given to gay couples is preposterous.

Please don’t assume that ACL’s position is representative of Christian views on this matter. A lot of us support marriage equality.

The Bioethics website is of course one of the many propaganda sites run by the deeply misogynist anti-feminist opus dei.
This reference and website describes the double-minded peculiarities promoted by it. http://www.odan.org/questionable_practices.htm

As with all back-to-the-past "traditionalists" they have a deeply disturbed, even psychotic relationship or understanding of bodily existence.
Would you send your children to a school run by such deeply disturbed self-righteous people?
But then again opus dei isnt really a genuinely traditional "catholic" outfit. It has created its own self-serving independent teaching and structures apart from and separate to much/most/all of what is usually recognized as official "catholic" doctrine, and any form of real accountability to the usual "catholic" authority structures as outlined in the magisterium or canon law.

Meanwhile a senior opus dei propaganda hack is now in control of the world's largest and most powerful propaganda (lies-all-the-way-down) machine, namely that run by the Vatican - the toxic tentacles of which reach into almost every town & village on the planet. He used to run or control the Fox (faux) "news" service in New York.

This website provides the necessary means for deconstructing the double-minded lies promoted (and hidden) by this propaganda machine. Including the carefully crafted squeaky-clean media image of the new pope.
http://popecrimes.blogspot.ca

Man and woman are biologically complimentary...homosexuals are not. There is no equivalence. A homosexual relationship is no more equal than a parent and an adult child relationship. Just saying something is equal doesn't make it so. I don't know how homosexuals have been able to get away with their flawed arguments for so long.

What exactly are these people arguing for? The issue is about allowing same sex marriage. What is their problem with same-sex marriage where no children are involved? Why do they presume that marriage naturally has to lead to children? Why are they not campaigning against same sex couples who already have children but are not married? There seems a lot of inconsistency there if it really is about the welfare of the children.

@Phanto, "What exactly are these people arguing for?" Good question. I'd say they want to conflate unions of two different types of relationships under the one word "marriage" which has traditionally been used to define a special relationship between a man and a woman. They want to redefine the word "marriage" just as Gillard wanted to/did redefine the word "misogyny" from fear of women to hatred of women.

Maybe you can answer this for me: Why is pedophilia defined as a psychiatric disorder and homosexuality is not? Why can't paedohiles claim it was something they were born with and therefore its just as normal as any other physical attraction between two people including that between homosexuals?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

Well...the homosexual brigade have tuned up, and are now playing in the town square.
A little out of tune and off key ...but hey ...one day they may grow up and play in the big band!

Skepticism is healthy in good or evidence based science or belief!

However, it seems to never ever be applied by the bigot to their own never ever tested or questioned belief system/value judgments!

Pedophiles may well be born with their seemingly unnatural afflictions? But particularly if there's a surgical procedure to the Ganglia Obbligato, that can cure it!?

And given one cannot choose their sexuality, which is created in the womb and by nature; along with left or right hand dominance!

It then follows that the only ones able to choose anything, are the never ever wrong, dyed in the wool bigots!

The very worst examples being still hiding in the closet homosexuals; some of them married and with kids? [Micromanaging workaholics, with habits and hobbies that keep them out of the house and the marriage bed, as long as is possible!?} And yes they are often devoted doting dads!?

And only possible because these blokes, who are often the most blokey blokes, invariably remain welded to a never ever tested belief system; and all that separates them from those that don't/can't/won't deny their true nature!?

Denial, which then results in various health disorders raising their ugly heads, and wives who stick, out of clearly misguided loyalty; even where that costs them their own chance of enduring happiness!

And to those folk I say, stop ignoring your own gut instincts!

Moreover, the Bigot's never ever tested belief system, also confers on them the God like power of moral arbiters?

It is said that only God can make a tree, and if true, the only one with the power to dispense God's moral jurisprudence.

And given all of these natural aberrations were/are the products of creation/nature.

Where do these others get off trying to force their never ever tested, disillusion, grandiose, (sermon from the mount) stone age value system on all others!

That being so, they and those who CHOOSE TO deny their true nature, are the only ones in need of quite intensive psychiatric care!
Rhrosty.

Why worry about children? If one needs to lick the government's arse, requesting their approval of one's personal relationship, then they deserve castration anyway.

Yuyutsu,

You have a point there.

Gays used to be able to decide for themselves what relationship they preferred and it was their choice, as was sorting things out on break-up.

Now thanks to the leftist 'Progressives' and a few Gay Pride activists they are told by public bureaucrats what sort of relationship they are in. -Even if it wasn't their intent to enter a de facto arrangement and they disagree, what the public service clerk says, goes. The definition of 'de facto' is broad and vague enough for the bureaucrat and court to decide your fate regardless.

There must be a lot of lawyers among 'Progressives' because they are laughing all of the way to the bank. Once the lawyers didn't have that market, but that must have back in the 'bad'(sic) old days eh, 'Progressives'?

The 'Progressives' aka International Socialists don't really give a damn about what is best for homosexuals. They are just using gay rights (and others) as one of their Marxist tools to de-stabilise Western democracies so they could bring about what they wanted instead.

Very likely, all most gays ever wanted was to be able to live their without public attention and interference, and an alternative lifestyle outside of the usual expectations, under the radar so to speak.

Uyutsu and Onthebeach; it must be such a comfort to know that you're never ever wrong!

And that none of the quite huge suicide rate of young men; as a percentage of all suicides, has nothing whatsoever to do with your medieval morality; or your patently pious parsimonious pulpit pounding, froth flecked pulchritudinous platitudes? Like that old hoary chestnut; sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me!?

It rather depends who's saying them and how much blatant rejection comes with them! And in that context, words can and do kill!

Time to come out of the closet perhaps, "GUYS"?

On a brighter note, there was a time when being gay meant something else entirely, as did staying off the grass, as did getting up a head of steam, getting a head job, or blown away, or a bum rap! And where clap meant applause.
Rhrosty.

Rhrosty,

You discredit yourself with that sort of post.

Sadly, gays have been used and abused, railroaded into government interference and regulation of their private lives by feminists and leftist 'Progressives' intent on their own secondary agenda of re-engineering society. Gays are regarded as tools (apply both senses of the word). That is obvious on programs such as the ABC's Q&A.

Leftie gays were very ill-advised to sit back and allow the feminists and the smug we-always-presume-to-know-what-is-best-for-everyone 'Progressives' to hijack their affairs and dictate their lives for them.

So much for the alternative lifestyle, out of sight and mind of interfering bureaucrats and lawyers. The old gay Lefties would be rolling in their graves, but I hope they are still enjoying jazz music wherever their souls rest - the interfering feminists and 'Progressives' haven't got control of that.

otb,

"Rhrosty,

You discredit yourself with that sort of post."

Lol!...I suppose you think you do yourself credit with your boringly repetitive off-the-peg generic leftie-bashing diatribes?

It doesn't matter which thread you descend upon, it's always the same old guff.

How many times in one short post can a person disparage Lefties, Progressives and feminists?

9 times in your last effort - 3 times apiece!

I do admire your skill in managing to keep at hand your interchangeable rhetoric. No matter what the subject, you can paste the blame for it on the Left - Voila!

I think you might have the Rightie version of Abbottotototaphobia.

I'd watch that if I were you.

Rhrosty: “And given one cannot choose their sexuality, which is created in the womb and by nature; along with left or right hand dominance!”

Where is the evidence to suggest this? This is always presented as a fact but I am interested in finding out where exactly such an assertion comes from. In underpins our laws in regard to discrimination against homosexual people but I don’t quite see why.

Surely there should be some strong proof of such a fact to be able to base laws on it. Perhaps it is just a view that has not been critically analysed but something that is asserted with aggression and everyone becomes too afraid to challenge it.

Yes Phanto, left handedness definitely is created in the womb with some help from genetics!

As for sexuality, there's abundant evidence of it like left handedness, as a natural aberration; and throughout the animal kingdom, for those prepared to just look!

Which given your endless denials, just doesn't include you!?

What's your problem, if you looked and saw for yourself you'd be no longer able to engage in your unique form of unjustifiable gay bashing?

Or have to admit you were wrong to reject and isolate a family member?

Look, your sexuality is controlled by four sex centres in the primitive brain, which is where are our instinctive urges and reactions, flight or fight, sexual preferences are created.

No heterosexual I know has ever admitted to choosing to be a heterosexual, nor being able to somehow choose a different outcome, as something done as an act of free will!

Yet confer on others the ability to choose to do just that!

There are four sex centres in the primitive brain, two for the girls and two for the guys, and even as we have a plastic brain and of two halves, that lost or damaged through injury and or accident, the spare half can take over and replace the lost facilities!

We all start our life as humans as a female fetus in the womb! And males require a flood of testosterone from the mother to be able to become fully formed males!

And clearly that Hormonal-flood can be interfered with by the circumstances of the Mum.

Health, anxiety and anger, may sometimes interfere with that flood, which may not complete or indeed, be appropriate, so we get masculine females and effeminate men, and in some cases, with all four firing, a bit of both and a pedophile?

And given that is so, no living being chooses his or her sexuality, and or, seemingly normal sexual responses!

However, you can always spend ten of fifteen years learning medicine, to arrive at your own INFORMED conclusions!

And wouldn't that make a pleasant change from medieval ignorance!
Rhrosty.

Rhrosty, "no living being chooses his or her sexuality, and or, seemingly normal sexual responses!"

The candid flip-flops of celebrities would say otherwise, that there is choice and that is likely to be affected by a rocky path through adolescence.

Stories like this are common,

How I went from committed lesbian to a happily married mother of four

As Chris Huhne leaves his wife for a mistress who was once in a gay partnership, JACKIE CLUNE talks candidly about her own emotional journey

Looking at my four children racing around the garden with their father, it seems almost impossible to believe that only a few years ago I never imagined having a family.

Or rather, when I did stop to think of myself as becoming a mother, I imagined the only way I'd do so would be through an anonymous sperm donor.

Today, with five-year-old triplets, Thady, Frank and Orla, and a seven-year-old daughter, Saoirse, a husband and a home in a leafy London suburb, I could be viewed as the archehtypal wife and mother, even if - as a stand-up comedian and actress - I don't have a conventional career.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1289652/How-I-went-committed-lesbian-happily-married-mother-four.html

There always were people who would jump anything. Their selfishness and irresponsibility usually extends to risky sex and they present a danger to the community.

While not all STD risks can be removed for young women who intend having children, it should be an offence where any intending sex partner does not disclose in advance if s/he has participated in bisexual sex of any description. It is a serious offence to carelessly endanger another person's life. That the offender may not even be concerned to seek regular medical checks only adds to the offence.

Pre-marriage health checks should be strongly encouraged, with a view to obligatory blood tests at a future date. If religions don't like that, tough.

Same sex unions are not marriage by definition, however another term can be used for the contract.

Rhrosty, haven't read such a load of rubbish in a long time.

"We all start our life as humans as a female fetus in the womb!".

Us humans start life as a zygote formed from sperm and egg. It is sperm which is the variable factor in determining the sex of the baby. If the sperm carries an X chromosome, it will combine with the egg’s X chromosome to form a female zygote. If the sperm carries a Y chromosome, it will result in a male.

So Rhrosty we don't all start life as a female fetus.

Your analogy of left handedness with sexuality is equally as stupid.
Whether a person is left or right handed manifests itself much earlier in life. And whether a person uses their right or left is neither here or there. Not so when it comes to homosexuals (not including bi-sexuals) condition. On their own there is no way they can procreate.

I'm left handed. If my left arm was amputated for some reason I could train myself to use my right arm with little psychological disturbance. From what I have come to understand homosexuals (not including bi-sexuals) can't change to being heterosexuals.

I take the same position as phanto. Where is the hard scientific evidence that a person's homosexual preference was set prenatally?

Just because heterosexual behaviour exists it does not does not automatically mean that it is natural. The same could be said of homosexual behaviour. There are a great many behaviours that humans indulge in that are not natural. Only behaviours which are in accord with nature could be deemed natural. Such behaviours will be both logical and reasonable. If you are hungry it is natural and logical to eat, if you are tired then you sleep. You are reacting in accord with what nature has designed us to do for our own good.

If you want to create your own child then the natural way is for a man and a woman to have sex. It is logical to have sex for this reason. No one has a problem with this anymore than they do with eating or sleeping. If however, nature has not created the means for same-sex couples to have sex for this reason then it is fair enough to question why they try to have sex without having the natural equipment to do so. There is no question that heterosexual sex is both reasonable and natural but homosexual behaviour must always be open to question. It seems neither natural nor reasonable. We may even ask whether or not it truly is sex.

I think this is why many homosexual people and their supporters set off in search of some scientific backing for their behaviour. Heterosexual people do not need to justify their behaviour since it is obviously what nature intends us to do. Why is there no such obvious endorsement by nature of homosexual behaviour? Why do they have to go looking for something that heterosexuals have no need to look for?

Heterosexuals do not have sex only for the purpose of procreating. They have it because it is pleasurable. Nature made it pleasurable to ensure that the species would continue. Without that pleasurable aspect we would probably die out. The pleasure is there for a reason but it does not follow that we have sex every time we feel the urge to do so.

'Just because heterosexual behaviour exists it does not does not automatically mean that it is natural. The same could be said of homosexual behaviour.'

said by someone totally blind to design. In case you have not noticed, the anal passage is designed to pass waste. Putting other objects in that place defies nature and often leads to disease. Don't need to many brains to observe that.

Well Runner, if the 'designer' had any sense he/she should have made the anus ( and the mouth for that matter) much smaller, and not given humans the right to choose then?
Some Heterosexuals indulge in anal sex too, so the 'designer' got it wrong there too...

Yes onthebeach, and you're not alone in that context.

Here in Oz there's a story of a leader of dikes on bikes falling for a bloke and becoming a parent! Which proves what?

For every ying there's a yang, or that bisexuals can swing either way?

But particularly when the biological clock is winding down and the desire to have kids becomes stronger that the dominant sexual preferences.

I've also heard of a well reported case of a alpha male Sydney footballer, having his neck fractured in a scrum!

Some of the shards from the fracture entered the Ganglia Obbligato at the base of the brain and basically harmed or destroyed that which controlled this alpha male's normal heterosexual urges!?

And given plasticity, the other female sex drive centres eventually kicked in and took over!?

Today he's a hairdresser, with all the mannerisms and gestures one would expect from a "camp follower"!

And he's not alone, with one well reported case in Scotland, where a pedophile had his unnatural urges removed by a small virtually painless procedure that burnt out the female sex centres inappropriately, also firing in his PRIMITIVE brain and creating all his unnatural interests.

At last report he was apparently happily married, had a couple of kids, and had never ever been happier!

And no, not to be confused with massive electric shock/aversion therapy applied to the frontal lobes! And not where our sexual urges, natural/conventional or otherwise, are created!

And yes when fetuses become recognizable fetuses, as opposed to a glob of dividing cells, they all appear to be female!

Interestingly, the same thing occurs in the marine world, albeit at a much later stage of normal development!?
Rhrosty.

Rhrosty, you tell a very funny story:

"And given plasticity, the other female sex drive centres eventually kicked in and took over!?

Today he's a hairdresser, with all the mannerisms and gestures one would expect from a "camp follower"!"

Yes so a change in sexuality comes with changes in "mannerisms and gestures", just like something you'd buy off ebay...comes with all the optional extras.

Oh so now all fetuses are not female...they just appear to be female. You're slowly learning I can see.

Suseonline, "Some Heterosexuals indulge in anal sex too..." That doesn't negate runners argument. I knew a comment like yours was coming. All it suggests to me is that the other entry points might already be occupied or off limits due to the time of the month or the couple decided to vary their sexual practice...you know how it goes...a change is as good as a holiday.

Suseonline, "Some Heterosexuals indulge in anal sex too, so the 'designer' got it wrong there too"

You might have a very short life span if you conducted your life by that juvenile 'logic'.

Since you often say you are a community nurse you might advise whether anal sex is recommended by doctors and what disorders, bacteria and disease could be expected.

In case you are forgetful,
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/sexandrelationships/analsex.htm

As a general comment, why are risky sex practices are being promoted and normalised by the media and in entertainment? Who gains?

The additional costs to public health must be enormous. Add to that the pressure young women are being put under all sorts of pressure to comply. What about the foul, unconscionable behaviour of any media outlet, particularly a publicly-funded one, that assists to normalise such highly risky practices?

How anyone in public health could be spruiking for anal sex is completely beyond me. It is unethical. However, if I was a senior manager and found out that any employee was doing that the person's working career would be short and that is regardless of whether the business was engaged in public health delivery.

Young women, especially those who might want children at a future date MUST put their own health FIRST, ALWAYS. There are far too many people around who take risks with their own health and don't care about the health and wellbeing of their sexual partners.

It is very unfair and unethical that the left-leaning media, and the ABC is a leader in that respect, would be normalising risky sex and putting young women under pressure to service men in ways that go completely against their instincts and good sense and could harm them permanently.

Sometimes in public affairs the lunatics seem to be in charge of the asylum.

and to think Susies a nurse. I hope you did not learn your warped logic at nursing school or we will all be in trouble.

It is always interesting to discover the hierarchy of priorities of feminists and the political 'Progressives' aka Fabians (the self-acclaimed 'Wolves in Sheep's Clothing) aka International Socialists.

Obviously the health and welfare of young heterosexual women and couples is well down their list and not important at all.

Not surprising for creeds that trash family and promote centralised State control, with the State being responsible for raising children in lieu of their families.

There is hypocrisy in feminists and leftist 'Progressives' pushing gay marriage when they (feminists and 'Progressives') regard marriage as negative, outdated and unnecessary and their ultimate aim is its destruction.

Excellent article. Many Thanks.

Well all I can say is to hell with all the gays, lefties, progressives, libertarians, feminists, technocrats, social engineers and anyone else working to bring us into a tyrannical totalitarian state.

Gays are hypocrites and don't want equality anyway (Not all, but most) and these links below prove it. I think homosexual males are like a bunch of whiny sooky childish little kids who throw a tantrum and go dobbing to whoever will listen when they can't have their way.. Just like when they were kids and couldn't fit in with the other kids.

And for anyone who doesn't agree with me and wants to attack me just remember I just one of 6.5bn people on the planet and if cant accept that everyone on the planet has their own opinion of things - and is rightly entitled to - then you are the one with the problem.

To hell with political correctness and the hive mind mentality.

http://www.infowars.com/before-god-this-is-something-we-couldnt-make-christian-baker-tells-court/

http://shoebat.com/2014/12/12/christian-man-asks-thirteen-gay-bakeries-bake-pro-traditional-marriage-cake-denied-service-watch-shocking-video/

Runner, you can't have it both ways with your bizarre God beliefs. If you believe your God designed this world and its people, then he/she also designed homosexuals, and gave us all a choice of what sort of sex we want to have.

Roscop, I doubt that heterosexual anal sex is any less dangerous to your health than gay sex. No one has ever said anal sex is a healthy pursuit, but then again, neither is heterosexual sex always healthy either.

There are far more people in this world who have acquired sexually transmitted diseases through heterosexual sex than gay sex, simply because they are in far greater numbers.

One doesn't need to be a nurse to know all this, just someone with even basic intelligence would be aware of these facts.
I doubt that the truth ever got in the way of a good homophobic rant from all you he-men though.....

Suzeonline – Even homophobic people are entitled to their opinions or are you against freedom of speech for those you deem homophobic? Calling people ‘he-men’ in the hope that such insults will make them go away is a sign of desperation.

Whether there is a God or not is irrelevant. There is such a thing as nature and human nature. We all admit that. We talk of the fury of nature and we talk of human nature and the laws it has. There are certain behaviours we simply have to do such as eating, breathing, sleeping because they are in accord with our nature as human beings.

People do not always do what is in accord with their own human nature. Just because people do something it does not make it natural. Just because people behave in a homosexual way doesn’t mean that it is natural. If it is natural they should find it easy to explain how their behaviour is in accord with nature in the same way that heterosexual people can.

'Runner, you can't have it both ways with your bizarre God beliefs.'

Sorry Susie but your irrational unbelief leads you to very illogical and perverse conclusions.

Suseonline - As far as God designing homosexuals is concerned you're wrong, God didn't design homosexuals - he gave man FREE WILL.
And what about the fact a lot of homosexuals have intestinal parasites and Hepatitis A and B from ingesting fecal material?
If you think that's natural then please post a link to an image of yourself eating some.
No? - That's what I thought.

I'm not overly religious though and I don't deny gays their right to exist but I do frown upon their lifestyle and this current trend of forcing homosexuality upon us through a television campaign to try to make us accept it. Also making straight people feel guilty of their opinions like we're the ones who aren't normal and of the destruction of traditional family values.

The world's upside down and people are useful idiots..
Take the whole push for mandatory vaccinations for example.
Blaming parents who choose not to vaccinate their kids because of side effects when we are told they are 100% safe, and making them feel guilty and blaming them.

No matter how many TV discussions I hear not one interviewer has asked the MOST OBVIOUS QUESTION
If your kids are IMMUNISED - then they should be IMMUNE so what the hell are the parents of immunised kids worried about?

- Yes people that have been vaccinated can still contract it later on.
And yes - people die / become paralysed / become vegetables from vaccines; a small number but it does happen.
It just proves that vaccines are neither safe nor effective and its just another big campaign of lies..
Most likely so Big Pharma can make more money.
Why do you think these companies are immune to prosecution when something goes wrong?
But they want to make it mandatory..
Mandatory for some poor mother to raise a daughter for 14yrs so someone else can turn her into a vegetable with a fast-tracked vaccine created by a company immune to prosecution??
Doctors don't even tell you about possible side effects but the parents are criminals?
Whatever happened to 'Do no harm?'