Dear Cornflower,

I do not have any hidden agenda, therefore
your assumptions about me are not accurate.

I merely quoted from the Greens website
in response to your question about Centrelink
and Gays. I thought the website answered your
question rather well.
You criticized me for chosing that particular website.
However, you failed to mentioned the fact
that what they said was actually correct.
And you accuse me of being bias?

I'm not deliberately trying to be divisive.
I said that I don't care to continue this discussion
any further simply because I don't see
us achieving anything constructive.

You're entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine.
Including the very poor one you obviously have of me.

However, I do have a question for you...
You say that you're concerned about the government's
interference in people's private lives.

Well, I'm sure that you'll agree that a decision
to marry is a deeply personal choice. And, the Australian
government prevents gay couples from making that choice
for themselves - simply because they are gay. Isn't
that interfering in people's private lives - and
shoudln't you be concerned about it, as you claim you
are? Or do you mean that you're only concerned about
government interference in certain people's private
lives - not giving a damn about the others?

Also could you answer CJ's question. He's been asking
you to do so for this entire thread. You can't accuse
people of being 'selective'
when you are guilty of doing just that.

Dear Sancho,

Thank you for your well reasoned inputs.

Dear Foxy, I fear you are flogging a dead horse here! I have worked out that we will never change the minds of some contributers to these pages, although, like you, I sometimes feel strangely driven to argue with them!

Cornflower, if we ask for some opinions on a subject, it doesn't mean we never want to hear any opposing opinions to our own. If that were the case there would be no need for online opinion.

Most people don't care whether gays get married or not, because it doesn't really affect them. If you are opposed to gay marriage, that is fine, you will never be forced to marry a gay person!

Foxy,

So the gist of what you are saying is that you are upset and it is my fault. But you can still see well enough through the veil of hurt feelings to bowl up that tired old chestnut from Morgie again. What a joke and give me a break!

However much I might value your opinions on other threads I have reasons for disagreeing with your stance on this issue. As you know I am firmly opposed to the tricking-up of any legislation that causes it to serve purposes that are at odds with the original intent of the legislation. Such back door modding of the Marriage Act as proposed by the Greens is unprincipled, unethical, entirely unnecessary and sets a most regrettable precedent. The end does not justify the means by any stretch of the imagination.

The reasonable and as it so happens the democratic way of doing things would be to either to withdraw the Marriage Act and start again or (better) draft a Bill for the purposes you have in mind. Either way there must be full and direct consultation with the electorate especially because it is glaringly apparent that there is no community consensus with recent changes to family law.

The government does not have a mandate to change the Marriage Act and that has been confirmed by the opposition and by the government.

What is wrong with asking for full and direct consultation with the electorate on significant social legislation, especially where there is no mandate for change?

suzeonline,

With respect, have you read my posts or just the posts that That misrepresents where I am coming from.

Cornflower <'With respect, have you read my posts or just the posts that That misrepresents where I am coming from.'

On the contrary Cornflower, I do perfectly understand where you are coming from. It is just that I don't agree with you. Sorry.

This thread is about gay marriage- not Muslim marriages, not polygamy, and if you '..abhor the continued interference of government in the private affairs of citizens.', then why on earth are you upset about allowing gay people to legally marry?

Dear Cornflower,

I'm not upset, and I certainly understand
where you're coming from. As I've consistently
said - you're entitled to your opinion, I
just don't happen to agree with it and I can't
understand if you're so concerned about
government interference in people's private affairs -
why you can't see that by not allowing same-sex
marriages the government is interfering in
people's private affairs.

I've also stated quite clearly - that it will
be up to Australia to decide what sort of
legislation it wants passed. At no time did
I suggest that this should be done without community
consultation.

You seem to think that this is somehow an attack
on you personally.

It's not.

A healthy vital society is not one in which we all
agree. It is one in which those who disagree
can do so with respect for other people's opinions
and an appreciation of our shared humanity.
Without personal commitment to the attributes of
fair play and integrity, our community is in grave
danger. Malice and intolerance stalk our society.
Where people are not free to disagree, democracy
ceases to exist.

Many of the things that most of us were brought
up to think "could never happen here," have already
begun to happen. Dangerous scapegoating, violent
hate crimes, small-minded intolerance for the views
of others.

It is more important that we renew dignified and
respectful dialogue with those who don't agree
with us than that we keep congratulating those
who have the wisdom to see thing our way.

Foxy

Thank you for the reply.

It is important that people engage with one another on subjects like this rather than regurgitate the spin of the propagandists from either side.

suzeonline,

No, you have made 'rights' and 'equality' your goal, so how can you deny the same rights and equality to others?

You are saying that it is the first one to the picket fence that counts and they can stand in line.