So, assuming the high court allows these marriages, ONLY IN THE ACT, will this mean these SS couples are only ever married if they either live in, or visit the ACT.

Afterall, any SS so.called married couples, those who left the country to get married, are not recognized as being married once they re enter Aus.

I doubt they could ever get over this.

..all 47 of them, that's 94 people in all.
The Netherlands marries about 1400 same sex couples per year, on average the divorce rate is roughly the same as for opposite sex couples but much higher for Lesbians and much lower for Gay men. To put it into context however women initiate the majority of divorces in all marriages and Lesbian relationships are often less stable than those of homosexual men, that's the explanation given by the Danes for the significantly higher divorce rate among Lesbians.

Just for you guys! Australia's very first legal gay marrage

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/12/07/01/40/first-same-sex-marriages-take-place

What the law has put together let no man put asunder.

I must check outside and see if the world has ended because gay couples are marrying in the ACT. No, no, the sun is shining, the birds are singing, and the christian loonies are crying, whaling and gnashing their teeth, nope, things are normal, nothings changed.

'I must check outside and see if the world has ended because gay couples are marrying in the ACT.

yea Paul just like the fools before the flood and before Sodom was destroyed.

Exactly Paul, well said.

Runner threatens us all with a horror 'punishment' he believes happened thousands of years ago, because two same-sex couples stood before their friends and got married.

Really?
Is that the best you can come up with Runner?

Jay of Melbourne, "..that's the explanation given by the Danes for the significantly higher divorce rate among Lesbians"

LOL

There is a business opportunity in leasing U-Haul trailers to lesbians.

Mind you, from reports of the high incidence of domestic violence in lesbian relationships you would need good insurance on those trailers.

Suseonline, Have you ever noticed that for some of our kind, loving, forgiving, Christians as soon as you don't agree with them they want to pluck your eyes out, cut out your tongue, and burn you in hell for eternity. And that's all from instructions they received from their benevolent and merciful god. I would hate to catch em' and their god of compassion on a bad day, I would hate to think of the consequences. I'm sure its suppose to scare you into submission, well fellas it don't wash with me! I'll continue to bag the pompous hypocrites at every opportunity. LOL

Oh god, don't some people talk so much garbage.

The reason for all this pretend high minded rubbish is nothing to do with respect, love or honor. It is all about money.

Particularly for bureaucrats, teachers, our ABC types etc., it is to take advantage of the Oz taxpayer.

If the homosexuals are married they get to hold on to their "partners" super when they die.

Must be a large cluster in the media, or this would have beeen recognized as the true reason for years.

Just found this on OLO, in the thread 'same sex marriage.'

http://www.christianmingle.com/landing/v4splash-aus?prm=91814&lgid=FB-male-03-03_v5|forum.onlineopinion.com.au

There is man seeking woman and woman seeking man, but no man seeking man or woman seeking woman Heaven forbid there not even a space for priest seeking boy, what on earth are the catholic clergy going to do, read the bible, heaven forbid.

The sheer stupidity or dishonesty of discussion of SS marriage is all there is to it.

It's simply untrue to claim that SS marriage is "illegal". It's not illegal. Gay couples have exactly the same rights as everyone else to exchange solemn promises to be faithful and look after each other etc. They have more right than married couples to arrange their property relations as they want. And they have more rights than polyamorous people to marry. If you want to talk about marriage being illega, bigamy and polygamy really are illegal - gay marriage is not, and it is only dishonesty or sheer ignorance to claim it is.

It is also simply untrue that marriage is constituted by an act of government. Not even the government claims, or has ever claimed that.

What gays can't do is *register* their relationships with the government.

What none of these lying or stupid people has ever explained is why government should be registering sexual relationships in the first place; and if they should, why every kind of sexual relationship shouldn't have "marriage equality".

......What gays can't do is *register* their relationships with the government.

Oh yes they can JK, they simply need to find a desciptive word other than marriage.

Problem solved, game set and match, but they just can't accept the fact that they are not the same, and for anyone to suggest their union is the same as that of a man and woman is simply wrong.

....What none of these lying or stupid people has ever explained is why government should be registering sexual relationships in the first place; and if they should, why every kind of sexual relationship shouldn't have "marriage equality".

My thought is that they registered these marriages so as to place stability into the child's life, something that would be impossible in a SS marriage.

Could you imagine being a kid growing up with a dad and dad, or a mum and mum.

While I'm not religious, one thought I do have is that god created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

I wish they would simply go off and find another word.

"......What gays can't do is *register* their relationships with the government"

Gays have been less than keen to register their 'love' with Centrelink. That was despite the previous Labor government making special arrangements and encouraging them to do so and Centrelink ensuring that its policy and contact staff were sensitive to their needs.

Beach, according to a Glenn Matthew, who claims to be in a same sex relationship he experienced problems with Centrelink. Glenn claim when filling in an online Centrelink form he encountered problems. Possibly if what Glenn said is true, it may explain why as you put it
"Gays have been less than keen to register their 'love' with Centrelink," maybe they can't.

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1859392

I can not substantiate what Glenn Matthew posted, no more than I can substantiate what you claim as being true.

"I was in a sandwich shop the other day ordering a sandwich.

The man next to me was ordering one I particularly didn't care for.

Although what he has chosen has absolutely no effect on me, my life or the enjoyment of my own sandwich I think it's my right to deny him his own choice".

No the sky hasn't fallen in but as I've pointed out society is always less "equal" after progressive reform, what's now written in stone is that there's no such thing as "marriage equality". Gay men seem to divorce at half the average rate and Lesbians at double the rate of all other pairings, when you take into account physical gender differences we now have three distinct types of marriage, not one.
Expect to see different traditions and ceremonies arise for the two new types of marriage, for example it's common for one party in a Lesbian marriage to appear in drag at the wedding ceremony and one gets the impression that this is done with all the usual solemnity of one so betrothed, it's not comparable to say, getting married in your bathers or using a Kenworth prime mover as the bridal car.
I don't like the word irony but the big mistake made by the pro side was the use of the term "Marriage Equality", most reasonable people are of the opinion that we can accept different strokes for different folks and that point of view has been vindicated, what we've got is greater diversity in marriage, which is the exact opposite of "equality".

Aside from the marriage argument, I have a question that goes beyond that.
If a pair of married homosexual men applied to adopt a young boy and
if you were the public servant charged with giving approval would you
be happy considering the risk of having that child come back in 20+
years and charge you with incompetence or worse for what happened to him ?

Dear Bazz,

I imagine that adoption agencies would have to
apply the same strict criteria to all couples wanting
to adopt. Be they straight or gay. All couples
should be investigated for their suitability
to be parents. Because as we know the mistreatment
of youngsters can apply to all sorts of people.

Child abuse, involving such acts as burning children
with cigarettes, locking them up in closets, tying
them up for hours or days, not feeding them, or
breaking their bones - is alarmingly common, and
probably causes many of the thousands of runaways
that happen each year.

Foxy that is about the weakest reply I have ever seen you post !

If I was the public servant, I would refuse to be party to it and pass it to my boss.

Dear Bazz,

Having worked at the Department of Community Services
in my early days and witnessed what went on in the
Child Protection Department in matters of child abuse -
I can only give you a
reply from my experiences. However, if that by
your standards is consdiered "weak," well, I guess that's
something I shall have to learn to live with.
Difficult as it may be.

PS: I hope that you notice that I don't tell you what I
think of your posts. ;-)

If I was the public servant, I would refuse to be party to it and pass it to my boss.
Bazz,
Spoken like a true public servant & if I were your boss I'd demand you make a decision or else.

Well Individual, I would say to my boss; "As I considered the risk
involved to myself, to you and the dept, I thought I should refer it
to you so you are aware of what is happening. Having informed you of
the situation and considering your response I will reply to the
applicants with my decision."
"I shall confirm this conversation in a memo to you."

Just having reread that, I think I missed my vocation !

Lexi, hmmm that is strange, I called you Lexi, are you one and the same ?

Foxy said;
PS: I hope that you notice that I don't tell you what I
think of your posts. ;-)

No I had not noticed, but please don't be shy, not that you ever
struck me as being shy.

I did once serve as an appointment advisor for that dept and was put
under pressure to not approve one candidate who previously worked in
that branch and moved for family reasons and wanted to come back.
The personnel report was quite good, was well qualified and in the
Northern Territory had experience with troubled aboriginal families.

When I asked why I was being steered away I got no real answer.
I gave my OK for that lady but as I was only one opinion I don't know
what the result was. She was far and away the best qualified.
I was never asked to advise again.

Bazz,
you sound like my boss, not capable of making a decision. What are you there for if I have to do it myself ? The reason you have the position is because of your resume which says you're capable but now you tell me you can't do it. I say go & get smoko for all of us.
This is so typical a scenario now & that's why the whole of the public service has become such an expensive waste of money.
People get a position & before they can actually function properly they already apply for another. There doesn't seem to be a system based on ability & competence. There is a word for that. It's called the Peter Principle.

Foxy, a thoughtful and a most incisive post. One of your best.
"apply the same strict criteria to all couples wanting to adopt" How fair and equitable that is, so refreshing. Unfortunately at the very next counter we have Mr Bazz also dealing with an adoptive couple Neal and Colin, he has just waved Steve and Jan on their way with a big congrats on their new adopted baby he just approved. Now for this pair of P#@%$@S "on ya bike fellas no P's allowed."
Do I detect an undertone that some would suggest that gays are pedophiles from "charge you with incompetence or worse for what happened to him" What did happen to him, Bazz?
Bazz said "If I was the public servant, I would refuse to be party to it and pass it to my boss." Is that because you are homophobic or just a buck passer?

Indi, these days I'm sort of a part time "public servant" and I make little decisions which effect people, some times adversely, boy do some get upset, even yell and scream at me, I've had gay people say something like "are you saying that because my partner is Fred!" "No mate, nothing to do with it, sorry you don't meet the necessaries, bad luck.." I do that all the time, and most people are accepting but a few make a fuss, just human nature." Your right, if you have to make decisions that affect others adversely, and its your job, you make them, and so be it."

Foxy, "apply the same strict criteria to all couples wanting to adopt"

What criteria? You are careful not to mention what criteria should apply.

There will always be core criteria and agency preferred criteria. There are very few children available for adoption. In that case the priority should be what?

I believe that no overseas country will accept an adoption application from an homosexual couple. Are they all wrong and if so why?

There are far more couples wanting to adopt than babies/children to be
adopted. If you asked a child if he/she wanted a mum & dad or two dads
or two mums, what do you think he or she would choose ?

The child would have seen other children with their mums and dads and
would want the same for themselves.
They would not indulge in a round of political correctness.

The best thing for a child to be adopted is to be placed in the most
natural situation possible, ie with a mother and father.
Especially if there are other children in the family.

If I were the boss I would expect my subordinates to keep me appraised
of situations like this as far as I can see most public servants are
scared stiff of surprises.

Paul quoted;
"apply the same strict criteria to all couples wanting to adopt"

and there is the application of political correctness over and above
the best for a child.

Nothing more to be said. Petards come to mind.

One of the tradies I use is a fine a man as anyone could ever find, and his wife is the same. Through working hard to build up the business they left their run for children a bit late, not realising that they might experience some fertility difficulties (on which they independently spent a lot of money, and time of course). Now they are told they are unlikely to adopt because of age.

I wonder if the Australian population would agree if available policy and criteria put a homosexual couple -who presumably are fertile apart from the obvious impediment- ahead of them because the homosexual couple were (say) marginally younger, or were of the same age but ahead of them in the queue?

I realise that Foxy might see it all as black and white, but that is presumably because the criteria she has in mind confirms her own subjectivity and value judgements.

Beach, that's right "Now they are told they are unlikely to adopt because of age." Some friends of ours tried to adopt some years ago and because he was over 35 at the time they were told the same thing.
What do you think of a family member, like a sister, handing over a child to another sister for adoption/raising? It happens in my partners community, years ago an aunt wanted her to hand over one of her children, however she would not do it, others did.

Butch,
I am with you on this.

Same sex unions are not the same as different sex unions and homosexuals should simply find and use another word. Marriage means a union between male and female. Wordsmiths would easily come up with a suitable word/s.

I think the only reason for using the word marriage is that homosexuals want to project their sexual activities in a more acceptable way.

I don't care what they do, but should leave the word marriage out of it. What's wrong with the word union?

The "strict criteria" I referred to
in cases of adoption for couples is set by each
State and Territory and it also has its own
legislation governing local and intercountry adoption.
I had assumed
people of any intelligence would realise what was
meant by "strict criteria."
It's not brain-surgery afterall.
Family law in Australia with regards to children is
based on what is considered to be in the best interest
of the child. However, anyone interested
in the specifics of the criteria can
Google it for themselves using the subject heading,
"Adoption in Australia." The assessment process is very
intense and covers a wide range of conditions that have
to be met.

Things like one's ability to be physically
and mentally able to care for a child until the child turns
18. Their ability to provide a suitable family environment.
That they are of good repute and haven't been found
guilty of certain offences. Their age. Are they eligible to
adopt a child? and the list goes on.

This is just one of the broader links available on the
web and it covers same-sex couples as well:

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

As I stated earlier,
each State and Territory also has its own legislation governing
local and inter-country adoption matters within each State and
Territory. In addition to the Adoption Acts, each State has
corresponding regulations. As of 2011 Tasmania and South
Australia are currently undertaking parliamentary reviews of
their adoption laws.

Paul,
That used to happen a lot among whites as well, my great grandmother was raised from infancy by her aunt and uncle and called them mum and dad. My mother in law was raised by her grandparents and my mum was sent to live with relatives in Melbourne for extended periods of time when my grandfather was sick or unable to work because of his war injuries.
There's an interview in a book I'm reading about Edwardian England where a mother is cursing the fact that her sister didn't offer to take on her nieces "She with only the two and me with eight and a husband off work".
Lately I've come to accept that all these diverse and unorthodox living arrangements and family structures are inevitable because they've always existed, talking to my mum about it at the weekend she said there were people when she was growing up who were openly gay in a small country town in the 1950's. I even recall in the 1970's a very elderly Lesbian couple in our street, one of whom still got about dressed in 1940's men's suits and hats and carried a Gladstone bag like all the other old timers.
That said Mum pointed out that parents always kept one eye on the kids and one on the sexually eccentric adults when they were about and it was tolerated but not accepted.

Banjo, The word marriage has thousands of years of use referring to the sexual commitment of a man and a woman. Similarly homosexuality has been around for a similar period - it is a perfectly good descriptive word of their sexual relationship. There are other descriptive words used of same gender sexuality in common use that describe perfectly their relationship.

Catholic Priests are very nice men to which Catholic parents give their children into their care. Similarly Homosexual men can be equally nice people. Both can be predisposed to intimacy with male children.

However our society has failed to give good paternal roles to boys as 1 in 3 are raised by their lone mother. Imagine if they are raised in a two mother household and neither was a biological parent. Boys need male roles of provision for a family and leadership.

You are right there Josephus, paedophiles are present in all walks of society, and are no more prevalent amongst homosexuals than any other group.

As far as adoption goes, the few babies available for adoption in this country will go to a heterosexual family because most relinquishing mothers (parents) will request that for their babies.

There are a few who will say they would be ok with their baby going to any loving family of any sexuality, and it is these babies who may go to homosexual couples.
However, it is overwhelmingly Asian and Indian countries who allow this sort of adoption or surrogacy for homosexual couples.
I say good luck to them...

While on the subject of overseas surrogacy and adoption,

Couple offered son to paedophiles
http://www.theage.com.au/national/couple-offered-son-to-paedophiles-20130630-2p5eg.html

Father Joe, I think it is disgusting of you saying;
"Catholic Priests are very nice men to which Catholic parents give their children into their care. Similarly Homosexual men can be equally nice people. Both can be predisposed to intimacy with male children."
Produce evidence of widespread pedophilia amongst homosexual men, granted there is overwhelming evidence against Catholic priests, what are you predisposed to, its certainly not Christianity by that statement.

Jay it was common practice pre war and shortly after, often through economic circumstance children were passed around amongst family members, even to extended family, for raising and care. They were hard times, and there were few other choices for people. Even my own mother who was a farm girl in western NSW, her family was "relatively" well off. Mum at 16 was sent pre war to Sydney to live with an old spinster aunt in Redfern. Aunt quickly got mum working for a rich eastern suburbs family 6 days a week for 15/-. Mum said Aunt took 10 bob a week board.
My partner "T" came from a poor family of 13 in NZ, her youngest sister was raised by her oldest sister in her house, there is about 30 years difference in their ages and younger sister always seen older sis as "mum", there real mum died when younger sis was about 1. After her death a few of the younger children were moved about, but even to this day the family bond is strong with all of them.

a good view of how sick a society is and becomes when it legalises perverted 'marriage'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZXzUpzHLkA

Runner,
All the effects the narrator speaks about have been institutionalised in this country before same sex marriage but he, perhaps inadvertently makes a good point, the militant Gay lobby aren't after equality they're after power. The LGBTI crooks in Boston are not reforming the system they're just re-staffing it with their people and redirecting public funds to their cronies, imagine if a religious group tried to do the same, there'd be calls for a judicial enquiry and charges of corruption in office. It's just Tammany Hall flying a rainbow flag.

Jay Of Melbourne

'The LGBTI crooks in Boston are not reforming the system they're just re-staffing it with their people and redirecting public funds '

I suspect strongly the ABC/SBS are doing the same.

Homosexual marriage is not about equality as they have that already in Australia. It is about taking legal action against those that disagree with homosexuality and removing freedom of expression of opinion.

They are about seeking power to deny societies rights to a scientific opinion that marriage is the biological lifelong sexual union of a human male and female.

They deny it is not the only description of the term "marriage"; that it includes a lifelong commitment of two males to an anal sexual union, and two females to a life long substituted penis sexual union. Neither of which fulfills the ultimate biological evolved purpose of complementary gender i.e. of both genders needed to procreate the human species.

People who are born left handed, ought to be able to marry who the chose!
Ditto people born with club feet or no feet, or cerebral defects, or two left feet!
And if our sexual orientation is a product of nature and created like all of the foregoing, in the womb, then the gay community has as many rights as all the aforementioned!
It's time for a completely bipartisan conscience vote, and, representatives who represent their electorates, rather than a small minded, ignorant, medieval, personal bias!
No ifs, but, or maybes!
Rhrosty.

'And if our sexual orientation is a product of nature and created like all of the foregoing, in the womb, then the gay community has as many rights as all the aforementioned! '

And if padophilla is a product of nature. Yeah Rhrosty just repeat the idiotic unscientific dogma. Many woman have a bad encounter with a man and deceide to be lesbians. They then reverse it later on. Give us a break from trying to put a scientific spin on things unless of course you want to look at diseases spread through sodomy.

Rhrosty,
I note you have demonstrated an uneducated narrow view of others who disagree with you, showing an emotive argument. All the examples you have chosen to claim rights are spurious as none is denied relationships covered in legislation and all with the exception of sodomy are physical disabilities. Homosexuality is not a physical disability, it is a choice. If is is as the other examples you posted there are procedures to correct such a disability.

All as Runner has said of lesbians is true. Prove they are born genetically always to always prefer a sexual relationship with another woman, and that without a substitute penis. As the English High Diver said in his coming out, "I am currently in a relationship with another man, but does not mean I might later have a relationship with a girl." He is leaving his options open.

Gay men in a heterosexual relationship can produce children so the bond with another man is not marriage but merely emotional, and if sex is involved is an act of uncleanness. It is people like yourself that wants to silence scientific and natural evolutionary reality; and follow like uneducated sheep homosexual lobbyists.

I have just been having a look at the High Court judgement as posted on AUSTLII, and it is in principle, largely as foreshadowed by myself and others.

I was however pleasantly surprised to see that it does point the way forward, which perhaps though is a subject best considered in another thread, except to note with pleasure that it does put the likes of *Runner* and *Josephus* back in their box, as it should.

In saying that, I would quote as follows:

" ...

35. The social institution of marriage differs from country to country. It is not now possible (if it ever was) to confine attention to jurisdictions whose law of marriage provides only for unions between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. Marriage law is and must be recognised now to be more complex. Some jurisdictions outside Australia permit polygamy. Some jurisdictions outside Australia, in a variety of constitutional settings, now permit marriage between same sex couples.

36. These facts cannot be ignored or hidden. It is not now possible (if it ever was) to decide what the juristic concept of marriage includes by confining attention to the marriage law of only those countries which provide for forms of marriage which accord with a preconceived notion of what marriage "should" be. More particularly, the nineteenth century use of terms of approval, like "marriages throughout Christendom"[47] or marriages according to the law of "Christian states"[48], or terms of disapproval, like "marriages among infidel nations"[49], served only to obscure circularity of reasoning. Each was a term which sought to mask the adoption of a premise which begged the question of what "marriage" means. The marriage law of many nations has always encompassed (and now encompasses) relations other than marriage as understood in Hyde v Hyde. ... "

Dream on keep dreaming as the High Court has not defined marriage any different than what it defined in Australian law.

The Christian, Jewish and Muslim communities will never recognize homosexuality as equal to marriage. The homosexual lobby would love to control by laws the right to disagree that such is not equal to a marriage.

I think that it is quite plain to everyone that the likes of you neither have the intellectual capacity nor the ability to comprehend what has been said.

You see, I think that your kind are quite willing to try and cobble together any barely coherent bunch of arguments to try and advance your cause, but as noted by the High Court, it is but a mask to promote your own belief of what "marriage" means.

Now, on that point, I for one do not care what you believe and in fact, support your right to hold a belief (irrespective of how delusional it may be)and to practice your religion however, there are limits.

You are not to inflict your muddle headed views on others, especially children, except those adults who choose to subscribe to your beliefs.

And in that regard, what are you people other than filthy pedophiles and those who cover up for them, baby stealers, child abusers and that's just the tip of the ice berg.

..

And of course, within the realm of religious folk, there are those who are accepting of all Souls irrespective of their sexual preferences so to claim that all Christians, Jews and Muslims are opposed to homosexuality just shows the depth of your ignorance and what a pathetic and demented individual you really are.

Your kind are responsible for the persecution of the vulnerable and if you think that you are going to get away with it as you have in the past then I assure you, you have another thing coming, so I suggest you desist, keep your beliefs to your dead and dieing churches and adopt a platonic love and tolerance for those who are other, as if not, you may care to consider praying that my kind do not catch you in the act.

Whilst in the past you have run off sniveling that you are being bullied, the reality is that you only have been attacked (and will be again) if you yourself choose to persecute the vulnerable, and there is a distinct difference.

DreamOn,
Now your real character is showing.
You show you cannot express intelligent debate only abuse. Over 60% of the Australian population agree with the view that marriage is a mutual lifelong consent only between a man and a woman. All other configurations of sexual relationships is not marriage as the law defines.
It is time the Government took homosexual unions to a vote by the people to silence these lobbyists. We do not want our children brainwashed with the idea that homosexuality is normal.

Dear Josephus,

I am sure that there will be a Referendum on
same-sex marriage sometime in the future.
It's inevitable.
However you may be surprised to learn that
according to recent polls approx. 62 percent
of Australians do support same-sex marriage.

As I've written in the past, if we assume
that there is only one "right" marriage form,
then naturally any change will be interpreted as
heralding the doom of the whole institution.
It is important to recognise, therefore, that
there is an immense range in marriage, family,
and kinship patterns, that each of these patterns
may be, at least in their own context, perfectly
viable, and above all, that marriage and the family,
like any other social institutions do inevitably
change through time in our society, as in all
others.

Our personal beliefs will not stop these
changes from taking place.

Foxy demonstrating the Marxist rhetorical tricks of talking about change as though it is inevitable, that is no other option and history of on her side, while cynically dismissing the democratic decision of the Australian electorate that so recently threw the rubbish out of Canberra who promoted similar 'inevitable' views to her own.

The only thing taught by history is that society and especially children have been very well served by the Marriage Act that Left
Progressives' like Foxy want to trash.

Yet the same 'Progressives' are not so willing to examine the negative consequences of other social experimentation they are responsible for. Nor can they even claim that they and the few noisy Gay Pride activists who push homosexual relationships being regulated by the State have the support of homosexuals.

Up until very recently when political 'Progressives' and Gay Pride activists hijacked gay politics, any suggestion that gays kowtow to the State and its regulation of their relationships would have been greeted with laughter, derision and strong opposition. However now that the 'Progressives' and Gay Pride have gone ahead to have heterosexuals' family law apply to what are now deemed gay 'de facto' common law marriages, they need a lawyer in their pocket to resolve partings that once they were quite capable of handling themselves.

Some 'advance' that was: the State's bureaucrats and courts are now empowered to inform them of the status of their relationships regardless of their own opinion, intentions and will, and the distribution of their income and assets is decided by lawyers and courts. Honestly, who gained from that back-room 'initiative' outside of lawyers and Marxist-feminist 'Progressives' who say outright that they would get rid of marriage tomorrow if they could, and 'just because'?

if facts were published as to the unhealthy nature of homosexual relationships few would vote for it. The 'progressives 'will ensure their propaganda continues to be pushed on everyone including kids in schools.

DreamOn,

Regarding your posting of Friday, 13 December 2013 1:34:21 PM on this thread:

You supposedly espouse a tolerant and 'inclusive' viewpoint (at least in your earlier posts on this thread), yet in this particular posting you demonstrate an immense intolerance of views at conflict with your own - to the point of becoming extremely abusive, insulting and pugnacious;

>>And in that regard, what are you people other than ......<<
(Further contents too sick to be repeated.)

Fanatics are to be deplored on either side of this or any other debate, and in my view you have stepped over-the-line with many of your grandiose statements in that particular posting, and I hope the moderator will take you to task over them.

The consideration of 'marriage' is supposed to be one based on love, compassion, harmony and societal stability/best-interest (for all involved), and not on a them/us basis or any blatant anti-religious crusade.

Retract, withdraw or do as you will, 'DreamOn', but in future I will look upon your posts with suspicion, particularly as to your true and truthful intentions.

Foxy,
Once facts and both sides of an argument are put at a Referendum it is unlikely to change the status. Currently gays in the media are promoting their agenda and using emotive arguments to influence public opinion.

Ask why do people of mutual consent want that relationship registered by the State that is not defined by the current laws of marriage? It is nothing more than power seeking as civil contracts and their own celebrations fulfill their purpose. NO! they want the word marriage so it degrades the exclusive relationship between a man and a woman with intention to procreate to mean almost any relationship.

There is nothing more than a political agenda, not a betterment for society and especially for children.

Dear Josephus,

Each society views its own patterns of marriage,
family, and kinship as self-evidently right and
proper, and usually as God-given as well.
Much of the current concern about the fate of the
modern family stems from this kind of ethnocentrism.
As I've stated previously if we assume that there is
only one "right" family form, than naturally any
change will be interpreted as heralding the doom of
the whole institution. And again, as I stated earlier,
it is important to recognise, therefore, that there is
an immense range in marriage, family, and kinship
patterns. One can't make generalisations about which of
these patterns are good or bad for children and society because
as we know there are differences and exceptions in each case.
And they need to be looked at on a case by case basis.

Our constitution allowed for the Marriage Act to be
between two people. It was Mr Howard who changed the Act
to read that it was to be between "a man and a woman to
the exclusion of all others." He made it political.
The original would have easily been passed by tthe
Supreme Court today.

otb,

You really need to change your strategy in your postings.
Consistently referring to "Marxism" and "Progressives,"
et cetera, when someone's views disagrees with your
own is becoming a bit of a bore.
This is such an old tact but I guess psychosis of this
order has been around in politics from year one.
George III in rare moments of lucidity believed
he was a peacock.

So we understand in your ideal world any sexual relationship goes as a marriage and family.

In our ideal world that is not the case as Western Christian social history has demonstrated, a child has the right to a loving and providing mother and father is the best outcome for a child. You can define marriage any way you like; but our definition marriage will always be the exclusive commitment of a man and a woman in a sexual relationship to the exclusion of all others - i.e persons of the same gender.

You may prefer an open sexual "alternate" society but demonstrate where one has successfully led the world in real social development, it usually applies to third world, inbred and primitive cultures.

[Deleted for abuse.]

As to my character *Josephus* I have not said anything here that I have not said on numerous prior occassions so the only revelation here is that in your misinformed and misguided head.

As for delusions of grandeur, for any person to delude themselves into believing that they have the right to tell mature consenting adults whom they may or may not love is up their with the highest of them.

Now, you may have your own definition of marriage pursuant to your own beliefs in your own church and practice your sacraments accordingly, but you are not to presume out of delusional ignorance or otherwise to attempt to limit the Freedom of Religion of others by vainly attempting to prohibit others practising theirs, such as those religions which have for a very long time "married" members of the gay/lesbian/tranny community.

They certainly as a whole do not seek to influence you altering or changing yours except as already noted.

In fact, I would say that it is your distinct lack of anything even remotely resembling spiritual power that you in a most misguided and deluded way attempt to coerce others to conform to your own views.

..

The Guvna General has spoken, the High Court has spoken and the Premieres more and more come to understand the consensus that is forming for change in the electorate.

You are beaten and it is useless to resist, so you either desist and change now, or figuratively speaking we will see your institutions burnt to the ground.

As for my character, I do not generally seek conflict, but if it comes looking for me it usually finds more than it bargained for.

Now, as for joyous occasions, let us remember the religious fruit cake in France not so long ago who put a gun to his head and blew his brains out all over the front steps in protest at the end of discrimination against gays etc

Suffice to say, it was a source of much mirth and merriment amongst my own. And for those of you who say "How shocking, How terrible!?" I would simply reply better that than that particular individual be allowed to go on preaching his hate and practicing his discrimination and the relegation of other Souls to second class status.

Likewise the Allied bombing of Dresden, where thousands upon thousands of catholic filth got what they deserved, and again, if deeds like this had not been done, those particular catholics would have gone on to continue to commit countless atrocities.

It was a shame that they did not bomb the vatican

(and they still have Hitler's staff car down stairs I have been led to believe)

back to the stone age at that time as well, and as a consequence, they continued to abuse the lenient treatment that was shown to them by smuggling high level catholic German war criminals out of Europe.

Fortunately though, we have had the Mossad and others to mop up the tail so to speak.

>>The only thing taught by history is that society and especially children have been very well served by the Marriage Act that Left
Progressives' like Foxy want to trash.<<

You must have had the worst history teacher ever. Thousands of years of recorded history and you were limited to the period from 1961 A.D. to whenever it was you went to high school? You've missed out: there's all sorts of excitement and drama in English history alone prior to 1961 A.D.

Cheers,

Tony

I could not be bothered answering DreamOn's misinformed vitriol, which shows his real character.

I am not Catholic so he sprouts ignorance of myself. Catholic Priests do not marry so they do not form a family of a husband and wife.

Dear Josephus,

You might want to look further into the question
of celibacy and Catholic priests.
The promise of celibacy has sometimes been waived as a
favour to married clergy (ordained Episcopalian) who
desired to unite with the Catholic Church. Also the
Eastern Rites - do not require the promise of celibacy
except for bishops.

Foxy, I imagine any Priest who married did not have a history of pedophilia or homosexuality.

>>Foxy, I imagine any Priest who married did not have a history of pedophilia<<

I wouldn't be sure about. I'm sure someone who knows as much about pedophilia as you claim to is aware that children are much more likely to be sexually abused by their parents than by unrelated strangers like Catholic Priests.

Cheers,

Tony

Dear Josephus,

"Love and marriage," is an old popular song that
tells us, "go together like a horse and carriage."
A compelling assumption in our society is that
everyone will fall in love, will marry, and will have
an emotionally satisfying lifetime relationship
with the chosen partner.

It is probably true that most people will fall in love at
some point, it is certainly true that many will
marry, but it is also true that a great many will
find that married life falls below their expectations.
(For whatever reasons).
To find out what can go wrong and why, we need to
look in more detail at family patterns and at
romantic love, courtship, marriage, and marital breakdown
and divorce. All complex issues - for all of us,
including married clergy.

As for pedophilia and homosexuality? I don't understand the
point that you're trying to make with those separate issues.
Perhaps you can enlighten me.

Tony Lavis, "children are much more likely to be sexually abused by their parents than by unrelated strangers"

Wrong. See here,

<Key message: From the evidence available, it is clear that with the exception of child sexual abuse, children are most likely to be abused or neglected by parents and/or caregivers.

Key message: Contrary to other types of abuse, research suggests that a far greater number of child sexual abuse offences are perpetrated by adults who are not in a caregiver role>

From, Who abuses children? By Alister Lamont. Published by the Australian Institute of Family Studies, February 2011

Foxy, I was referring to married Priests I believe do not have a history of sexually abusing boys or preferring sex with males.

Also from Lamont's resource sheet...

"Findings from the ABS Personal Safety Survey (2005) indicated that for participants who had experienced sexual abuse before the age of 15, only 13.5% identified that the abuse came from their father/stepfather, 30.2% was perpetrated by other male relative, 16.9% by family friend, 15.6% by acquaintance/neighbour and 15.3% by other known person (ABS, 2005)."

The key message should more accurately read: Consistant with other types of abuse, research suggests that a far greater number of child sexual abuse offences are perpetrated by immediate family or family friend, 60.6%.

It should be noted that the report types are only of the number of participants, not the number of sexual abuse incidents experienced within each category. The opportunity for incidences of sexual abuse to be perpetrated by a father/stepfather, other male relative or family friend would further - very significantly in my opinion - increase the number of offences.

It should also be noted that all of this is in the legal context of the only form of marriage being heterosexual.

Where it is attributed to the 'carers', child sex abuse is not likely to be by the biological father, but by the 'Um' friend of mum.

Dear Josephus,

The following links may be of interest to you:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/do-the-right-thing/201003/six-important-points-you-don'thear-about-regarding-clergy-sexual-abuse

And -

http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/issues/issues5/issues5.html