Foxy, I no longer have a problem with gays wanting to marry. My problem is that in doing so those in queer relationships want their union recognized as equal to mine and that's simply impossible because my marriage is between a man and a woman.

Marriage is not what they are seeking, it's equality and that just can't happen.

They can have equality as citizens but not as a married couple as they are different and if something is different how on earth can it be equal. It doesn't mean it any less important either.

As for a ref, do you honestly believe that if the vote is No, they gays will accept the verdict and move on. I doubt it!

Dear Rehctub,

I'm not in any position to judge other people's
relationship - so privately I can't say whose
marriage is "superior" or whose "inferior," based simply
on their biological sex. That to me doesn't make sense.
It's the quality of the relationship that matters - one
would think.

As for "equality," as far as I can tell - what is being
asked is that the laws governing marriage should under
that law treat people the same. That the governments
are expected to treat all citizens as equal regardless
of religion. Religious laws are not supposed to have any
legal status in Australia. That all Australians are supposed
to be equal under the law. Despite what we may think privately.
And this means that nobody should be treated differently
from anybody else - for whatever reasons.

You may not like it or approve - but that is supposed to be
the law - race, ethnicity, country of origin,
age, gender, disability, sexual orientation,
et cetera should not come into it
according to the law. Government agencies and the
courts are supposed to dtreat everyone the same - and fairly.

cont'd ...

As for what Gay activists will do if the country
votes "No?"

I imagine they can do whatever they legally are entitled
to do. It doesn't mean that that will get very far.
The people would have had their say - and that's the way
I imagine it would stay until (and if) the people vote
again sometime in the future and over turn their decision.

Appeals happen all the time in law courts.
But they don't always succeed.

Fox, "Not being either a gay activist or a "cultural Marxist," (whatever that means) I can't really comment on their agendas"

OK, so you are 'only'(sic) the publicity agent for their spiel, while implying you may not agree with them? Jowever you do agree with them but of course, which is abundantly obvious from your posts.

Now spin that cover story that you are only trying to 'inform', with the aim of ensuring 'balance'.

Fox, "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"

A Strawman, manipulative as usual. I have never held that Howard didn't amend the Marriage Act.

The deceit of the gay activists and Cultural Marxists is in insinuating that Howard somehow changed the meaning and intent of the Marriage Act, which plainly he didn't.

Howard acted to preserve and protect the universally accepted understanding that marriage was one man and one woman for life.

Quite obviously there were no gay marriages between 1901 and the present, which proves that gays had the same understanding of marriage.

Of course it is also a matter of fact and on the public record that up until very recently when leftist homosexuals foolishly allowed the feminists and Gay Pride activists to lead them by the nose, homosexuals were adamant that they never, ever, would be conformist like heterosexuals who were constrained by State and church definition and State regulation of their private life.

otb,

For someone who has an obsession with "cultural Marxists,"
"Gay Activists," "Leftists," and American Conservative
Christian Groups and Evangelists like James Dobson and
small-time hard-right British bloggers like Paul Austin
Murphy (PAM), you are in no credible position to speak
to anyone about what they may or may not believe.

Repeating the same tired lines - does not make them true.
At least to most people whose IQ is larger than their shoe-
size.

Foxy, superior or inferier should not come in to it, although if they did I would suggest a marriage between two abled bodies, one man and one woman, as opposed to that if the same sex, has the only chance of conceiving a child in a natural way.

That aside, I would not see a gay marriage as any less important than mine, just different and this is why the two can't be shared as one in the same.

Remember this is about the 1% of queers wanting the remaining 99% to change our ways just to suit their odd arrangements, sorry, that's just not on.