What are you talking about; you play the moral high-ground but you must know that one in every three marriages end in divorce and about half of these divorces involve children.
Partner abuse rates are high and last year there were about 46,000 substantiated reports of harm from child maltreatment.
What a laugh heterosexual marriage has become!
Married heterosexual couples got into this mess all by themselves.
How dare the authors tell homosexual couples that they both need to be natural parents and that getting married and having children harms the children.

In brief: get a life -focus on your own mess and stop interfering in the lives of same-sex couples who want to get married! It's none of your business!

My maternal Grandmother, her normal natural libido very much alive and well, and my paternal Grandfather, a Casanova extraordinaire, have found each other and a mutual highly physical attraction!

That includes dusk to dawn (many a good tune played on an old fiddle) love making?

Nobody has had the heart to tell these lively, active (let's get physical) adults, that they cannot produce kids! At least not without medical intervention!

So, should these two old people having, disgusting, ancient, creaking, unprotected, yuk sex! Be allowed to marry?

On the basis of both love and unbridled sexual attraction? That seems to make onlookers part of the routinely ignored furniture?

Or should we just wait for the inevitable cardiac arrest to solve this heirloom conundrum for us?

None of the above is actually factual, just homespun homily to underline a (Poynter's complaint) point!
Alan B.

The issue of divorce is a great topic for another article, as is the reasonableness of public recognition of the marriages of older Australians. Here the point centres around an inevitable sense of public moral expectation that will be born in the hearts of some people who hand the public their signed commitment to be married until death - is it reasonable for the public to get involved?
For heterosexual unions?
For homosexual unions?
This could be solved by formally removing the 'forever' aspect of the public definition of marriage, but of course that would formally change marriage into not-marriage.

Is this article effectively arguing against all divorce? No.

But the article is saying that it is reasonable for people who are publicly married, and who are considering divorce, to feel a public moral expectation that they must have weighty reasons to divorce and that they are to rebuild their relationship if they can, because of the heterosexual marriage-children-public interest link.

But the public interest justification is missing in the case of people in homosexual unions.

Some one thinks that heterosexual marriage has become a "laugh". Obviously somebody who has never been married or picked a dud to marry. But, putting their ignorance aside, why on earth would homosexuals want something so bad, if this person is correct!

True enough, but it feels like ssm, abortion, and euthanasia are just distractions from the real problem - modernism, or what Pope Pius X called,'the synthesis of all heresies'.

Homosexuals already live in legal partnership arrangements that invariably include a consensual sexual relationship and may also include children!

So what actual change are we contemplating?

And what current rights does that remove if any from the usual hidebound, control freak, Nay Sayers?

I would bet my house on none of any substance or worth whatsoever!

So why all the outraged, cage rattling frenzy? For heaven's sake grow up!

Don't show up at their civil ceremonies, don't ice their cakes! Don't ferry them anywhere in your hire car! Bolt and lock your church doors!

I promise you and your last century, medieval customs and control model, will not be missed!

Others will surely reap all the financial rewards you're turning your backs on!

And a dangerous position when surrounded by love lorn homosexuals, with a hard on? Just kidding!

Moreover, this is a horse already bolted and no amount of latter day slamming shut the stable door, will alter the "survey"!

Talk about the utter futility of preaching to the converted or fellow travellers!
Alan B.

It's about commitment. Children adds to a need of commitment. But marriage is (in my opinion) an act of commitment between a couple, regardless of children or no children that the couple agree to have.

If you can have that sence of commitment without a legal marriage, then your point is valid. It should only be changed if the issue of children are involved.

That said, having children is an integral part of being married. It's in the enviornment of being married. Thus the ideals and glue integral to fulfilling a commited relationship "until death," could be said are heavily influenced on having children and the posibility of having children. If homosexual relationships can show that kind of sturdiness in a relationship, then perhaps they might want to hold the agreement of committing to each other like hetrosexuals do in marriage vows.

All that said. You should hold each relationship to the standard of finding someone to be with forever. Get to know them and wait until your satified this is serious, or let them go before it goes too far. Anything less then this approach is not right. Anything on a casual approach is (in my opinion) the same as whoring yourself out. Marriage should always be with the intent of "until death do we part." Even if the couple don't live up to their vows in the beginning, marriage without intent to stay forever is not marriage.

Great moral expectations!? And EVANGELISTIC FERVOUR!

How about the thundering silence from the Nay Sayers posting here, as the Victorian Government rammed through its assisted suicide bill!

And emphasises as nothing else can, the absolute breathtaking hypocrisy of their priorities!

There were conditions! First being you had to be over 18, the second, you had to be terminally ill, in pain and with a life expectation of around a year?

That would probably put most brain cancers at the head of the list.

Finally you had to be a resident? Which would probably be satisfied if you had registered your recently acquired Vic. address as your official domicile and were on the electoral roll at that address?

So, here's the moral conundrum and high hypocrisy.

The Victorian government has made possible for you to legally top yourself with MEDICAL ASSISTANCE!

But like every other government in Australia, continues to withhold bismuth 213. The only prospect, in so many of these alluded to cases, of a remission!

We'll help you top yourself, but continue to deny you miracle cure nuclear medicine!

Why?

Because nuclear power is against Labor party policy!

Why?

Because nuclear power, no matter how safe, clean or cheap, is against Labor party policy!

Why?

Because, dummy are you deaf, it's against Labor party policy!

You can always tell a Victorian, but you can't tell em much.

Even so, first state with a bill of rights?

Decriminalised homosexuality?

And marriage equality?

Not too shabby for Doctor Death Devotees? Wadda ya reckon?
Alan B.

How could anyone expect a public recognition of their morality when they register their "moral" intents with an immoral rogue body such as the state?

All children are doomed to be brainwashed by the state school system irespective of who tries to raise them. The liberal democratic state hates the family, which is a threat to its power. SSM is another tool for the state to break the family with. It's just another state intrusion into the private lives of people who are too dumb or too disinterested to see what is being done to them.

ttbn:

I'd opt for modern, fully informed and accurate indoctrination, based solely on credible scientific evidence and ultimate defensible morality!

As opposed to entirely indefensible, massively immoral, archaic, medieval, stone age, witch doctor bone pointing, Nazi style, Pavlov imprinting, flat earth brainwashing, that begins in the cradle and only ends in the grave!

And demonstrably identified when credible evidence is ignored in favour the confirmation basis! Tragically, where reason and logic surrender to never ever questioned dogma and the ideological imperative!

At the end of the day we all face final judgement! Where those who refuse to listen or look at credible evidence that defies their set in stone mindset! Will without question have a case to answer or ex-plane! i.e. Who gave you the right to do so much harm or even kill in my name!?

Or perhaps you think doing a deal with the devil will save your bacon?

Well who in hell do you think is, rubbing his hands with unbridled glee and pulling your strings now, Dilbert?
Alan B

Thankfully, this survey will come to an end Nov.7! Dut not before a Queensland Labour government announces a snap election No.25?

Even as the anger created by this unnecessary 122 million dollar survey remains undiminished or amplifies in the minds of YES voters!?

All of who know full well this could have been as easily remedied as it was in 2004, with the strike of "resolute" PM's pen. That then amended the act, to make it say, marriage was redefined, as exclusively between a man and a woman.

And political capital for Labour!

Who have little else going for them!

Get possibly enough political capital to gain enough critical preferences to fall over the line in enough seats to retain power?

Well might we say, well done Tony, Cory, Andrew. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost and all the others circling away up in cloud cookoo land!?
Alan B.

Well there's a few minutes of my life I won't get back...wasted on worthless drivel. If I wanted to read worthless drivel I'd just content myself with reading ttbn's comments.