Dear O Sung Wu,

I fully understand what you're saying and I've also
found out in many situations that I'm not as "broad-minded,"
as I thought I was. Regardless of what we personally feel
about certain groups of people as long as their behaviour
does not hurt others, and they don't break the laws that we're
all expected to abide by - we cannot deny any body the same
rights that the rest of us have. And the right to marry is
one of those rights.

A Referendum would be an equitable way to settle this matter.

Fox, "A Referendum would be an equitable way to settle this matter"

I disagree.

General Comment
There is no way that the ideologues and activists pushing gay marriage would ever be happy with the wording of a referendum. It would always be 'unfair'. It would be more of the same Marxist disruption of parliament and no business done on the really pressing issues such as unemployment.

The activists would certainly NOT be accepting of a NO vote outcome for gay marriage.

The ONLY acceptable outcome as far as the Cultural Marxists are concerned is a YES for gay marriage, which is their toehold and wedge for creating havoc by using State power to beat up the churches and others they despise and want to undermine and destroy.

A 'yes' or a 'no', black or white, is a recipe for a running sore of discontent on both sides. That suits the Cultural Marxists.

However it does not encourage and cater for diversity and pluralism, which Australians could well prefer, ie 'live and let live'.

It should be possible to preserve the marriages that millions of Australians entered into and enjoy. Marriage is not as simple as the 'love' that the activists claim (although they make all sorts of claims when it suits them).

The only position of true tolerance is not to force both under the same definition and provisions. That might be possible with different sections in the same Act, or preferably, two Acts.

I am glum about what is very likely to be a missed opportunity to allow pluralism and diversity in the interests of social cohesion (and a fair go).

otb,

Not being either a gay activist or a "cultural Marxist,"
(whatever that means) I can't really comment on their
agendas. However the fact that former PM John Howard made
an Amendment to the Marriage Act in 2004 is not a lie and
is on public record whether you choose to recognise it or not.

Dear Rehctub,

The law is supposed to treat all Australians equally even
regarding a controversial issue such as the definition
of marriage.
Therefore what any of us personally think about this issue
should be irrelevant as far as the law is concerned - certainly
in a secular country like Australia.

Still we can certainly let our MPs know our views and apply
pressure to get the desired results. And of course everyone
else is also free to do the same.

We shall have to wait and see what happens next - and who
has the greatest clout in swaying Parliament to act.

Predicting the outcome is a risky business at the best of
times.

Gawd!...you'd think otb was paid a dollar every time he posts the term "Cultural Marxist"

(Someone inform him that repeatedly using hackneyed terms blunts the impetus of his argument....and..reduces...it....to....one....long....and.....drawn....out....bore-a-thon........)

Hi there FOXY and ONTHEBEACH...

Believe it or not I agree with both of you. As you quite rightly opine FOXY, let the people decide the question of Gays being permitted to marry in the conventional and traditional sense ?

On the other hand, I'm afraid some of the more radical activists (of both persuasions - 'for & against') would most probably never accept the 'people's' decision on the matter ? However convincing the outcome of a referendum proved to be ? As you've well illustrated herein ONTHEBEACH ?

Furthermore, much of what ONTHEBEACH has asserted, is probably close to the truth. Some people, notwithstanding the substance of an issues or issues, will strenuously demonstrate, for or against it, purely to create a climate of confusion, chaos and antagonism against everyone and everything !

Moreover, having enquired of their reasoning for some of their activism, most of the 'lesser lights' amongst the rank and file of these noisy dissident's, have no fundamental understanding of precisely what it is they're actually rebelling against ! And that in itself, is a real social concern for the future ? Furthermore most fall within a very similar demographic. Unemployed, receiving government benefits, some of whom are on sickness or permanent disability benefits, but are seemingly well enough to participate in a noisy public demonstration ?

I guess it'll all come out in the wash, and old goats like me with our out of date values, and redundant standards of morality, will be 'done and dusted' sooner rather than later ?

My only concern, is how much further, will both governments and society as a whole, allow public morality to descend ? Before it's decided any further decline would be a trigger for the utter degeneration of all human morality and social mores ?

Dear O Sung Wu,

While like you I hate to see morality decline, governments cannot and must not have a role as guardians of morality. To begin with, they themselves are an immoral body - go appoint the cat to guard the cream...