I can understand why "Dad" wants to remain anonymous to give such gratuitous advice so late in proceedings. How dare he suggest that other people need telling to "make your own independent decision", or "I was in your position also", assuming 'others' are as indecisive as he was.

He is a bit late anyway, given that 75% of the survey papers have been returned, and few of the disinterested will vote now. A voluntary 75% is an excellent response.

We are not talking about a political policy here, needing to be pondered over before a decision is reached. If you have to wait to be persuaded one way or the other over SSM, you don't have much going for you. We will never know who "Dad" is, but we do know he is someone with no respect for his fellow Australians and their ability to think for themselves.

This comes from the (highly inventive) pen of not only the dangerously ignorant, but signed as an anonymous!

So, Why should this person or their very civil story be believed? Particularly in light of the fact that homosexuality is not, as claimed by this, I believe, disingenuous author, something that the affected chose.

But rather like left handedness, something we are born with and imprinted into the trasferred genetic code.

He/she claimed he/she wasn't bother too much, because it was something done in private? And given never ever an eyewitness?

How would he/she know what other folk get up to, or try in their bedroom, be it hide the cherry or conception successfully achieved whilst standing in a hammock?

As Robbie Burns might have retorted, I hae me doots, I hae me doots! As for the undecided? They need to just understand, that this is a natural aberration, that if choice was ever available? Would never ever be taken! NEVER!

Even though the Nazis behaved as if it were and could be raped or bludgeoned out of existence!

If that were ever possible? Wouldn't folks as ruthless as them succeeded!?

No one, but no one is being asked to accept any diminution in their personal rights! Unless, like the Nazis, you believe you personally have a right to discriminate based solely on false (flat earth) "facts?"

Time for true equality!

No one is asking you to like it! Even if you, like me, find many aspects of homosexuality personally unpalatable?

It's not as if you are giving tacit permission to boy buggering paedophile priests to continue to offend and re-offend with impunity!

These are two very different sets of circumstances.

Wouldn't it be the ultimate irony, if it were the latter pernicious personalities the most verbose in their "time honoured" opposition to Marriage equality!?
Alan B.

While not exactly on topic with this article here's something I wonder about the SSM survey:

What happens if a majority of respondents favour a change but NOT a majority of the whole eligible voting population because of people who don't respond. Eg: say 60% of forms returned are a YES vote but only 80% of eligible voters responded giving the YES vote only 48% of eligible votes.

Now, in a normal election all that matters is the percentage of returned valid votes but this is different because it is a survey of public opinion on a specific matter and not mechanism to determine one candidate over another. So if overall less than 50% of eligible voters vote YES then will that be interpreted as the majority not supporting SSM?

(PS: I know the survey result is non-binding anyway so at the end of the day the parliament can do whatever it likes, making this whole exercise rather pointless if the politicians go against the survey result.)

Pointless and a waste of taxpayers money.....
But then so are our current mob of politicians.

Absolutely, right on the money, ateday.
Alan B.

One question for Dad:

Do you support Cory Bernardi's SPAM campaign when his robots intruded the peace of 1,000,000 families?

---

«the Bible does not approve of homosexual relationships»

The biblical injunction condemning homosexuality and ordering the killing of homosexuals, was given specifically to the Israelites. If you do not identify yourself as Jewish, then this has nothing to do with you.

---

«This proposed legislation is about changing the intrinsic characteristics of marriage.»

No, only about the entitlement to "legal marriage" (which ought to be abolished), which has nothing to do with marriage itself.

«I think as the way forward we should revisit the idea of a national civil registration of same sex union, which should aim to remove any remnant of discriminatory legal or administrative practices.»

The way forward is to remove all attempts by government to classify/register personal relationships.

In the least, current legally-married couples should be able to annul that status, once its definition changes.

---

«Other consequences that could arise are losing parental control over sex education, losing freedom of religion, or even simply losing freedom of speech.»

These are not consequences of the proposed legislation, but serious problems that ALREADY exist at present.

- Parents should have absolute control over what their children learn.
- Freedom of religion should be paramount in all circumstances.
- Private business owners should be able to freely choose whom they serve and whom they don't. They should not even need to provide a reason.

---

«Bathrooms in schools are open to all sexes»

So why were they segregated to begin with?

Nudity is natural and should not be linked with sexuality. This link only exists because nudity was suppressed, otherwise natural curiosity would be satisfied and never proceed toward sexual acts.

---

«Ultimately it might end up removing all rules on sex and sexual relationships.»

Churches need not remove any of their rules - and government has no moral right to make such rules anyway.

---

[Archbishop Mark Coleridge] «'It's true that all human beings are equal.»

Nonsense, it is false. Even your Archbishop bows to popular fashion.