If the National Marriage Day breakfast was about celebrating marriage, as opposed to a hubristic grave dance celebrating the exclusion of same sex couples from equal respect under Australian law, then why was it held on the anniversary of the Howard Government's ban on same-sex marriage.

If marriage is solely about the raising of children, and not a celebration of the commitment of the enduring love between two people, then why do we allow convicted rapists and murderers, and even known child abusers to marry- in some jurisdictions before they have even completed their sentences.

What exactly is it that a heterosexual rapist or murderer can provide a child that a loving, same-sex couple cannot- please do not tell me it's a gender role model.

Classic.

'Suddenly, in my demented state of mind, I had a brilliant idea. Here I was driving along a lonely country road, lined by big tall gum trees. What if I was to take off my seat belt and run into one of those beautiful trees at high speed? It would surely look like an accident. I had a large life insurance policy. I could provide better in my death than in my life. That’s when I heard my two-year-old son cry out “daddy” from the back seat.'

So you were ready to risk killing your two-year-old because of a dented ego. Great father!

'That is what happened to me all those years ago on a country road when my two-year-old son called out “Daddy” from the back seat of the car as I was contemplating suicide.

No. What you meant to say is 'That is what happened to me all those years ago on a country road when my two-year-old son called out “Daddy” from the back seat of the car as I was contemplating a MURDER suicide.'

'Eleven-year-old Brad said, “Fathers should spend more time with their children and less time at work”. '

Hey Brad, you better keep quiet about that play station you want for Christmas then, or else pressure mummy with some emotional blackmail to go out and earn some extra money to compensate for the lost wages.

If Mr Potts wants to promote a perverted view of marriage s bit. He should however leave kids out of the equation. Enough kids are abused now without bringing in your sick philosophy that will only increase the numbers.

Houellebecq, writes 'So you were ready to risk killing your two-year-old because of a dented ego. Great father!'
Don't forget to mention the thousands of mothers who murder their unborn simply for convenience or ego (it is my right). I suppose you call these great mothers.

Warwick writes 'Maybe our society is beginning to listen to the cry of our children.'

I hope so but I don't see a lot of evidence from posters on OLO. They seem far more interested in me and me than concern for children. Those who have the courage to take up the responsibility of fathers to love, discipline and provide for their children are true heroes in today's emasculated society. Keep up the good work Warwick.

runner- "Enough kids are abused now"

And who is doing the abusing? In the vast majority of cases heterosexual identifying family members- "Up to 90 per cent of child sex abuse the result of incest - report" AAP

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,,25824189-1702,00.html

Marriage does not stop sexual abuse. Sexual abuse often occurs inside marriages. The idea that letting gays and lesbians marry would increase abuse is without evidence or merit.

Not sure what "sick philosophy" you're referring to. Is it really that strange that gay and lesbian people who were raised by married parents and have heterosexual friends and siblings who are married would value marriage too?

Yes and this "love"-revolution is being promoted by essentially the same self-righteous groupings that are about to launch the Jesus and Life advertising campaign in Sydney.

And who of course in the context of New Zealand politics were behind the campaign for a no vote re the campaign to outlaw smacking. Speaking of which--what happens when you smack or hit someone/anyone?

They recoil in fear and pain, which makes them incapable of being emotionally vulnerable or loving in the present moment.

Do that often enough, and consistently, then the child unconsciously, automatically, and instinctively recoils into fear, and (repressed) anger based self-possession. And thus becomes incapable of being a loving presence, or even of receiving love.

And as an adult will thus staunchly assert that smacking or corporal punishment didnt harm me at all.

One of the best books on this topic is reviewed here.

http://www.nospank.net/fyog.htm

The old cruelties have a very long hell-deep pedigree and even a much longer shelf-life.

Gosh guys, how distracted can we get from the core of this article? Abuse - Same sex marriage - smacking - yadayadayada....
I read the essence of Warwick's article as being about Dads being there for their children... about sticking together through thick and thin. Forget politics. Let's talk about individual lives. My birth mum & dad gave me up for adoption, my adopted dad chose another woman and materialism over our family/us kids. My life has been poorer – and I'm not meaning financially – for not having a father who at least tried at consistent, unending love and involvement in his kids' lives.
What child would really choose a Play Station over a father who is there for them?
People matter. I think deep down if most of us really weighed things up and made a conscious decision – rather than being swept along by the individualistic, materialistic lie much of our society sells us – we'd rather be relationally rich than materially rich.
The heart of the matter is we individually and on a broader community basis need a father and mother who'll love us and be there for us.
I say go the love revolution.