Fox, "The law did not define marriage prior to 2004"

Once again, that is a deliberate lie promoted by the gay marriage activists.

Since you and others who slavishly follow the Leftist 'Progressives' and Gay Pride rhetoric you would also be aware of the other side of the argument, which of course you can always be expected to be silent about, pretending the other mainstream, reasonable side does not exist.

You would be aware of the opinions of the High Court and others stating that the marriage was exclusively understood as one man and one women for life. The High Court judges has said that on a number of occasions over many years and also commented that was the clear and well understood intent, meaning and application of marriage in Australia from 1901.

That is also the understanding of by far the greatest majority of people in developed countries, world-wide. Not that it matters because we are discussing Australia.

I would add too that it is only in very recent times where Gay Pride and other serial activists - some who are only in it to embarrass their political opponents as presently applies to L'il Willie Shorten and Labor - have seriously argued that the homosexual community wants to slavishly copy heterosexuals and worse, also be regulated by State bureaucrats and the State through courts.

Prior to that any homosexual who spruiked for marriage and State regulation of relationships was denounced as a having lost his marbles, as a ratbag and a cupboard hater of his own (homo)sexuality and others. As a 'homophobe'(sic) if the recently invented word (cultural Marxist tactics) had been around at the time.

tbc.

contd..

What has been going on is that the leftist 'Progressives' and Gay Pride activists, dominated where sex is concerned by the radical feminists who are well-entrenched in the federal bureaucracy and academia (and funded by the exasperated taxpayer!), have worked feverishly behind closed doors, especially while Labor is in government, to make State regulation of homosexual relationships a given anyway.

The fiddling of the de facto 'relationship'(sic) arrangements was proof of that. Some definition of de facto, even the federal bureaucrats who interpret it are conflicted by its murkiness, an inevitable product of ideology and idealism.

Do all or even most homosexuals want State regulation of their relationships and public service bureaucratizes and courts deciding what they once were considered adult enough to do informally and at no cost themselves? Most likely NO, if the history of homosexual thinking is considered at all.

Fact is, gays (referring in particular to the men) were damned stupid and lazy to ever allow the feminists and the bothersome leftist 'Progressives' who always presume to know what is best for others, to take over their affairs and do the running for them.

Gays have been and will continue to be used as tools (take both meanings), to beat up on those 'conservatives'(sic) the cultural Marxists see as opposing their social experiments and re-engineering of society.

otb,

Try to keep your mind open to possibilities and your
mouth closed on matters that you don't know anything
about - especially the beliefs or the knowledge of
other people and what they actually think and what
motivates their behaviour.

In repeating the same things in
each and every post on this forum - you sound as
Poirot stated on another discussion - "strange" to say
the least.

Limit your accusations of "Lies," of issues that are
on the public record, and your constant references to
"Leftist Progressives," the Leader of the Opposition
(and your childish name callings), and - the
constant references to - "cultural Marxists"
et cetera.

It may give you more credibility.
And encourage people not to just scroll past the usual
"blah, blah, blah, of your posts - which many of us
no longer even bother reading - because you never
say anything intelligent or new.

Give it a try - change your tactics.
You just may surprise yourself, and us.
Otherwise you will continue to be ignored.

In the mid sixties homosexual men were locked up for the offence of sodomy. Now in the enlightened year of 2015, it's all completely legal, and Gay's now quite rightly wish to marry. What's changed ? The sexual component of a Gay male's relationship, is still that of the unnatural act of sodomy. So now they wish to have this particular act, solemnised by a formal marriage ?

Easy to know when a Cultural Marxist is on the back foot with no facts to back up the narrative.

Others have remarked that when Cultural Marxists are confronted by the inconvenient facts that disturb their narrative, their kneejerk reaction is always to resort to personal attacks.

The totalitarianism of Cultural Marxism will be immediately apparent to migrants, many of whom have fled oppressive regimes. They would recognise the 'Never you mind' scolding and personal attacks on anyone who challenges the leftist narrative too.

It will be no surprise at all when migrants lead the revolt next federal election against the sledging of heterosexual marriage by the Cultural Marxist activists of Labor and Greens who are determined to trash the Marriage Act.

Butch
Mikk, what is wrong with my proposal?

It sends the message that gay people are unacceptable, outsiders, not the same, undeserving of what hetero couples have. It is divisive and discriminatory.
If your rights are not for everyone then they are not rights they are just privileges.
Why do heteros deserve the right to marry but not homos?

Why does it bother you what gay people do in their own lives? No one is asking you to "share" your marriage. Just leave people alone to live their lives as they see fit.

This is a slippery slope of telling others what they can and cant do because of your religious beliefs. What next? Bring back prohibition, mandatory church attendance, forced prayer meetings? How is this different to "sharia law"? Its just a different set of godbotherers.