Never heard of 'Dr. Katherine Harper', but good on her for intending to vote NO, although why she feels the need to say that she is not “ especially religious” is beyond me. Religion is getting a bad name from the SSM bullies, who would like us to think that religion is the main, if not only, reason why anyone would vote NO to changing the Marriage Act, which is NOT religious. Many people calling themselves 'particularly religious' are in favour of SSM and wrecking the Marriage Act and tradition. And, just how many of the very few homosexuals who actually wish to 'marry' (how ridiculous) are going to trot off to a church? They will more likely go to some camp and simpering celebrant.

Religion as a reason for objection is probably not the main one. What the activist bullies want to do to marriage, has already been done to religion, particularly in the nonconformist area, which has converted to Left wing politics in a vain attempt to be relevant. The only branch of Christianity that can be taken notice of these days is Catholicism, where they still actually believe in the gospels. The rest of us have our own non-religious reasons to be for or against.

The essay below was written as a response/criticism of two books:
Dirt Sex and Greed by William Countryman and Sex in World Religions by Geoffrey Parrinder.
William Countryman was a committed Anglican who did a very thorough study of what the Bible actually had to say about emotional-sexual matters and the "purity codes" associated with them. He argued that in a free democracy no religion has the right to impose its sexual morality/teachings on to non-Christians. They do of course have the inherent right to argue their case in public forums.
Geoffrey Parrinder was also a committed Christian. He essentially argued that in todays world the "conservative" Christian teachings (etc) on emotional-sexual matters are the only appropriate ones for modern human beings.
http://www.beezone.com/da_publications/freersex.html

and we know of the fallacy of the ' slippery slope' arguement. In the 1970's murdering the unborn was all about that poor 14 year old who was raped and had to carry the rapist child. Now with about 100,000 killings per year just in Australia it it largely about ' women's rights' and convenience. The left have no integrity with their lying mantras. Its not just about ' love'.

Yes Peter, logical rational reasoned argument.

But you're hissing into the wind, if you think facts or the emerging science will make any difference to brainwashed, clinically disingenuous folks, governed almost exclusively, by ideological imperatives, and Pavlov dog like, mind bending, cradle to grave, conditioning?

Who know with absolute certainty, their set in concrete, immovable positions are always right! Be it SSM, burqas or a one true God?

Let's have the "managed" and possibly inconclusive, non binding, one hundred and twenty two million dollar survey, then ask the people, whose money has been so thoroughly wasted! What they really, really think at the next general election!
Alan B.

Well said Runner. You stole my thunder. We are already seeing the beginnings of the slippery slope SSM may lead to and it has not even been legalised yet. We have already seen stories of the so called Safe Schools programme and what is being taught to our children. Fathers day is due in a few days yet some within the SSM lobby are already demanding that Fathers Day be abolished and replaced because, well, in some SS relationships the children do not have a father, or mother for that matter, While in heterosexual relationships they have both. This may be the last Fathers Day we will celebrate if they get their way. I will be voting NO, and NOT on religious grounds.

Woolworths has Father's Day, Mothers' Day and sour grapes on special but if push comes to parenting and Woolies doesn't choose Fathers it's still in the dictionary and the whole day is for dads. Kids without a father are miracles.

There is nothing derogatory about keeping the moral high ground.

Katherine Harper "I am a 30-year-old woman of liberal upbringing and no particular religious affiliation... I will be voting "no"."

I am a 49-year-old classical liberal of no particular religious affiliation, and *gay*, and I will be voting "no".

Not because I dislike the idea of two lovers declaring their commitment (which they can already do), but because this issue is another Trojan Horse of the totalitarian Left.

A successful yes outcome will only embolden the arrogant, narcissistic, statue-smashers to go even further.

No left-aligned "reforms" can be supported until this fanatical, delusional group dissipates and disappears.

*Then*, and only then, can Adam and Steve can get hitched (with my blessing, as long as that old fuddy-duddy Mrs Johnson as the cake shop can refuse to bake their cake).

The slippery slope fallacy doesn't apply in this case because we aren't discussing a relatively small first step! This is the argument used by the yes campaign to try and argue that the no campaign don't even have a right to even argue their case - and they are wrong: we do have a right to argue our no case.

The ssm debate is an attack on the church and therefore Western Civilisation. We all know who doesn't believe in the right to religion!

Watch out Western Civilisation: we are all under attack and the kids are not being taught to defend it!

People are being taught nothing but to do what the tv tells you to do. It's obvious which side of the campaign the tv supports: no wonder the gays all talk about their too long winded acronym in society as being much more easily remembered as 'the BLT crowd!'

Jokes aside,.. we all have the right to argue our case and any attempt to say you can't is fascism: ...which will ruin a society so keep your eyes peeled...!

hi mememememememe

I intent to vote Yes on this one but am not happy with the limited choices available. My preference would be for the government to get out of the business of registering relationships between consenting adults.

If they are in the business then that registration should have some purpose and corresponding legal obligations to match that purpose.

I do though see a real risk to the Yes case in that the SJW crowd will overplay their hand and adopt the same bullying tactics that leave many with an inclination to try and stop the rot.

If the issue is one too fondly embraced by the same crowd that demand diversity of appearance but not opinion, the crowd that support political violence against opponents, the crowd that try to get people sacked from jobs, places of study etc for holding or expressing opinions not related to those jobs, fields of study etc then a No vote by many of the otherwise not to bothered may be a stand against the rot rather than an attempt to spite SSM supporters.

People should have the right to dissent (on their own time). If a church does not want to conduct SSM services they should be safe to do so as long as they hold no government protected powers limiting access to marriage services. If a baker does not want to make a cake they should not have to unless they agree to do so and don't receive any government protection from competition. If you are employed by the government to process marriage certificates or similar though dissent based on personal views should not be an option in your employment.

R0bert

So, proponents of the "yes" vote, tell me again this is only about letting two people who "love" each other "marry". As others have pointed out, they can already legalise a union. What does the use of the word "marry" add in practice?

More curiously, why give the word "marry" such potency? Isn't the point of the union being with your partner? Are you planning to go through a "marriage" ceremony thinking only of that word and not the commitment to your partner?

Finally, if the proposed reform is legitimate because "two adults should be allowed to express their love through 'marriage'", as Turnbull and co have argued, when will it be legal for a brother to marry his sister, a filthy old paedophile to marry a six year old and consummate the union when she's nine, one person to marry another who is not competent to form the intention to marry, and why stop at two adults anyway?

This is terminal self-absorbtion by the devious left. The slippery slope is real.

Funny how the 'slippery slope' argument hasn't manifested in any of the 25 countries that have legalised gay marriage.

Dear R0bert,

«My preference would be for the government to get out of the business of registering relationships between consenting adults.»

I am of the same view.

So what have you got to lose by voting 'No'?

If the majority says 'Yes', then the law will be changed regardless and if the majority says 'No', then pressure will start mounting to repeal the Marriage Act altogether, then we can fight the good fight together.

If you say 'Yes', then you might be contributing towards retaining the Marriage Act for centuries to come :-(

R0bert:

"My preference would be for the government to get out of the business of registering relationships between consenting adults."

Are you not just contributing to the problem by voting YES? You are making a bad situation worse by opening it up to couples who at present do not have that option. If it is wrong for the government to be involved now then SSM makes their involvement even more irrational.

The only logical vote would be NO so as to limit the damage.

HereNow,

Good point: I'd say it's because they knew Australia would be a harder nut to crack but their accusation of the no votes use of it is so blatantly wrong that the media will be forced, I think, to pick them up on it and to stop pretending their fake journalistic skills are actually as bad as they pretend them to be.

This is an attack on Western Civilisation and its deception all the way down.

Luckily educated people can always tell... are our kids educated enough thus becomes the question. The attack on the church and thus Western Civilisation started a long time ago. We must wake up from the grip of greed to raise our children correctly or they will be tricked into giving away what our families actually died for.

Let's hope that Gays are willing to vote to change words , that's reasonable eh? One marriage partner will be "woman" , one "man" , Mrs and Mr. Then we can all feel safe, warm and fuzzy with bent words.

Calwest, the attack is not from the left: it goes way deeper than that!

If you define the left then you also define the right: but the truth is its from the extreme and that's also known as fascism!

Attacks on the church are not new: those seeking to bring down Western Civilisation are not new either and to say it comes from the left betrays you as so absurd because you have just defined the right as doing the same.

It's from the extreme: and Western Civilisation is awake to your plans of false debate!

Don't tell me what to think, she says? Well, somebody should, given if the lady does, it would likely be a new novel experience, especially if guided by the facts and scientific rigor!

But the whole issue and how we are going to vote in a "survey, may well be premature, given the right to appropriate money for a political stunt, has yet to pass the scrutiny and consent of the high court! And anything but a done deal!

Which then could see it deferred to where and when the coalition just doesn't want it, as an issue for the next election, where given the registrations, record number of young voters will cast a ballot!?

And where a plainly divisive Tony Abbott, may well struggle to hold his seat?

As for all this confected, highly conflated slippery slope rubbish, none of the other nations where SSM has been legalized have yet to report any obvious examples of this very dubious claim?

In any event, a long overdue chapter of irrevocable rights would prevent most if not all of the vociferous confected claims manifesting! Moreover, we remain the only democracy without one!

Strangely, those most against SSM, are also the ones most fiercely resistant to the latter? Go figure!
Alan B.

Alan, are you sure the yes campaign is being factual?

The yes campaign is trying to say the no campaign is lacking on a factual basis but I think you may be in for a surprise.

I had a poofter try to get into my pants when I was about 12, & have hated them all ever since.

I think we should still be putting them in prison, to protect us from things like AIDS, their most recent gift6 to the comunity.

Guess where my vote will be going, despite, [or perhaps because of] being insulted by people like this author & Alan B.

//I had a poofter try to get into my pants when I was about 12, & have hated them all ever since.//

If you were 12, then what you're describing is paedophilia, Hasbeen. It's not the same thing as homosexuality: people that are homosexual are attracted adults of the same sex. People that are attracted to prepubescent children are, by definition, paedophiles rather than poofters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

And everybody hates paedophiles. I hate 'em, you hate 'em, even the deadbeats in our prison system reserve a particular loathing for rock-spiders.

//I think we should still be putting them in prison//

We do imprison paedophiles, Hasbeen.

//their most recent gift6 to the comunity.//

Neither paedophiles nor homosexuals were responsible for HIV crossing the species barrier from primates to people. That gift came courtesy of Africans hunting primates for food.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV#Origins
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_HIV/AIDS#Origin_and_epidemic_emergence

But hey, why let the science stand in the way of good rant?