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.