Hi Minotaur my friend – you are being a bit presumptuous but I notice that is a common factor amongst a number of OLO participants. You have no idea of what I have done over the years which I believe equips me to comment on social issues, by all means disagree but don’t be presumptuous. I am well aware of many aspects of family and its developments and the ups and downs of societies over the centuries and across cultures, but my fundamental argument I believe is correct.

I grew up , lived and was socially and politically active during those postwar years . I certainly do not claim to have come from a utopian period but from a period of history where as result of depression and war there was a soberness in societal norms that I would argue lasted until the mid 60s when it started to unravel with the resulting outcomes I mentioned.

I see the LGBTIQ Agenda as not only a question of SSM but much more society changing – Safe School programs and so on. Frankly I only see the legitimacy of male and female genders, and marriage and family from that background. I am certainly aware that there are those in society who do experience SS Attraction – I do have friends and relatives who see themselves in that light, some have chosen to remain celibate others have entered into partnerships. I still challenge the concept of SSM because to me and others who reason as I do is the fact that biologically man and woman are made to mate, sexual acts have the potential for procreation and are unitive in their nature for husband and wife. SS couples can legalise their union to safeguard their financial etc interests but it is not ‘marriage’ and should not be recognised as such.

I am also concerned that the pushing of the ‘trans’ agenda will do harm to children especially those who are struggling with sexual and psychological confusion – but I cannot see that artificially interfering with surgery and loads of hormones is doing what is right for those young people. I recognise there are many psychological issues experienced by young growing up which has led to various forms of parafilias and fetishes, they need loving families and other social support to help them through. I realise for some that adjustment does not always occur, but I still do not see that surgery and hormones are the answer.

Toni Lavis:

I don’t understand how you draw the implication that I support the status quo. If I say there is no value in having a government certificate then surely the same holds true for heterosexual couples. There is only one certificate that applies to all or would apply to all.

Heterosexuals do not have to give reasons for pursuing a certificate since it is already available to them – they do not need to present arguments. If the act was to be repealed and they wanted it retained then they would have to present arguments in favour of keeping it.

Homosexuals have to present arguments and I respond to these arguments by pointing out that there is nothing to be gained by having a certificate. It is all about responding to arguments. If there are no arguments then there is nothing to respond to.

This does not mean that you cannot also be pro-active in working towards the repeal of the Act. In discussing the claims of homosexuals attention has been focused much more on government involvement in these relationships and more people are thinking about it. This may lead to a ground swell of people lobbying for a repeal of the Act. I have seen many people, including some on this forum, who might be galvanised into doing something about it. It depends on how important it is to them.

Raising awareness of the issues is a first step and who knows where it will go.

The point about homosexuals is that they are actively pursuing change for something which is irrational to pursue. Heterosexuals are not doing this. Each heterosexual couple who pursues a certificate has to live with their own irrational behaviour but at least they are not tying up government resources and millions of tax payer dollars arguing the toss about whether or not to have government involvement in their marriages.

I completely agree with Phanto.

While most people are busy or lack the temperament for political activism, the least that heterosexual couples can do to help repeal the Marriage Act, is to refrain from registering their marriage with the state. Some may go as far as registering for divorce, but it is too much an ask for a loving couple to live apart for a whole year as the current law demands.

Well they started out reining the word gay, are they now into the word rainbow.
I am not against anything but that mob make it hard for themselves.

Bagsy, it is hardly presumptuous to formulate a reply based on the content of a comment that clearly demonstrated a lack of knowledge about the evolution of marriage. And something you still haven’t shown much knowledge about despite an empty claim to the contrary. It is also notable that once again you evade answering my question. Not that you are alone on that one…seems nobody has any answer.

On a side note, you may believe that society has ‘unraveled’ since the 1960s but that is simply an outdated view. You may have preferred a society where racism was rampant to the extent of being government sponsored. The same applied to the overt and damaging sexism of the times. However, I’m certainly glad I don’t live in such a morally bereft and backward society. And the fact you think in narrow terms of strictly male and female gender and views on homosexuality indicates that getting any sort of rational discussion/debate from you is nigh on impossible. That’s not presumptuous but fact based on your clearly stated position