"Ireland has written a social suicide note.."
"..yet the good-natured Irish succumbed to the stupidity of nice."
".. the dementia that is afflicting the decadent West.."
".. Australia we will not be that stupid.."

What a disgraceful use of abusive mental health stigma, even using the agony of suicide to describe the vote of the majority. It is much more than a blast of homophobia and rampant bigotry: it's an attack on caring societies and their acceptance of diversity. It is impossible for van Gend not to know about both the detrimental effect of such language on the mentally ill and the excessive rates of suicide and mental illness of LGBTI whom he attacks. I am one such survivor, surviving. This is a doctor insistent on leading but violates the Mindframe and SANE Australia's guidelines on media reporting on suicide and mental health. http://www.sane.org/stigmawatch

Where is Online Opinion's responsibility toward the Mindframe National Media Initiative which advises to refrain from the "gratuitous use of the term 'suicide' out of context"?
http://www.mindframe-media.info/for-media

Van Gend's argument is duplicitous and disingenuous to the point of lying, eg " no unjust discrimination against same-sex couples in any way". That claim is counter to his next claim that "the greatest cultural gain of this referendum will be that all Irish children must now be instructed in the constitutional normality, indeed desirability, of homosexual behaviour, and conscientious objectors will be silenced by the big stick of anti-discrimination law." He has been a commentator, including here on OLO, of the Safe Schools Coalition and knows full well that prevention of LGBTI bullying and stigma is a responsibility that flows directly from anti-discrimination legislation where marriage inequality has been an exemption. In Victoria the school curriculum was updated to include LGBTI as normal human diversity by Minister Bronwyn Pike in 2006.

This is merely stigma-loading marriage equality with his rejection of the decriminalisation of homosexuality (SA 1975) and of anti-discrimination legislation (mid 90s). We have come a long way since SA in 1975 but we still carry like a millstone these immoral voices.

Hi there Dr David van GEND...

I totally agree with everything you've said ! For years now I've witnessed some of the more deleterious effects occasioned by all this 'societal experimentation', with gender and unions, and I do wonder precisely, where it'll end !

Serving in the police for over 32 years, the majority as a detective, I've had to endure some of the more disturbing sequels brought about by this modern trend of gender manipulation, refinement and unfettered sexual experimentation, together with the various 'fusions' attributed to those 'innovations' ? Some seem innocuous enough, many just break-up and move on. Regrettably some result in very nasty homicides ?

I have no difficulty, in fact I strongly support enshrining in legislation, the rights and protections of Gay people, as provided to all members of the wider community. I do wonder, if legalised, what'll be the consequences of break-ups, thereafter divorce ? Who'll obtain custody of any children (if any?) particularly if a male marries a male ? How will the Family Law Court deal with the many dissimilarities in an acrimonious divorce ? Fresh complications for police too, who're required to oversee the complexities associated with a variation of domestic violence ?

I emphasis I'm no expert, married twice with kids and grandkids, so at best I only possess a journeymen's knowledge of raising children, and preserving a good marriage.

However, there appears to be significant evidence suggesting children have the best chance of a normal upbringing, with a stable mother and a responsible (male) father. Each accountable for their own (unique) part in their upbringing ?

I'm not suggesting all Gay unions are bound to fail, there are some that prove to be quite satisfactory. Most endure the same pressures and struggles as we all do ? Such relationships do indeed attract additional problems, specific to their unique nature. Therefore requiring a much greater commitment for success. Making it just that much harder to inculcate those very necessary values and normal living skills, that children really need, in order to progress safely and successfully through their entire lives.

O Sung Wu, homosexual people already form relationships and experience breakdowns of those relationships. Homosexual people already care for children and negotiate care for children after relationships break down.

As a heterosexual man who's experienced relationship breakdown I can vouch for the fact that it can be pretty nasty for heterosexual people too.

I do agree that the best possible outcome for children is probably to have a loving mother and father, but a pair of loving mothers or fathers has to be superior to a pair of heterosexual parents at each others throats, or a single mother who has estranged the father or any of the range of lousy starts that some kids get.

I know you're a sincere person and so I respect your expressed view a great deal more than those of some others, but I think in this case perhaps you are influenced by something other than the particular arguments you have put forward in forming those views.

There is no rational or ethical reason for homosexual people to be prevented from having an opportunity to make a happy life with someone they love, including the chance to formalise their commitment through marriage.

" ? Fresh complications for police too, who're required to oversee the complexities associated with a variation of domestic violence ?"

What, you were in the police for 32 years and you think LGBTI domestic violence will be new. Hello! Don't you actually mean you had a career denying our domestic violence not offering us the support of police for our safety? Your portrayal of police is no longer acceptable behaviour and they now work within anti-discrimination legislation and through community policing strategies where they aim to understand and work with communities rather than against them.

If spurious capitalisation is shouting what is your spurious use of question marks? Are trying to change your controversial statements into questions so that you can't be attacked?

AJ Phillips,

It may be nit picking to make reference to the author's evident mistake in saying that the majority of Irish people voted 'Yes', but the facts are that only a majority of those who voted cast a 'Yes'.

I also point out to people, now and then, that an ass is an animal when they use 'ass' to mean 'arse', I'm programmed against Americanisms.

Having been a metrologist for some years I do like accuracy.

That’s close, o sung wu.

<<…there appears to be significant evidence suggesting children have the best chance of a normal upbringing, with a stable mother and a responsible (male) father.>>

But the evidence also suggests that just having two loving parents (even if one parent is not a live-in parent) is far more important that what sex they are. What does actually put a child at a disadvantage is having only one parent, or having two when one of them (again, live-in or not) exhibits high levels of antisocial behaviour.

Is Mise,

The point was that you overlooked the more important and glaring factual inaccuracies of the article. Whether or not you were nit-picking was a side issue.