The fact that all Australian voters will now decide on the vexing issue of same sex 'marriage' is a huge win for democracy. Putting aside the rights or wrongs of the issue (enough has been said), the idea that such a question can be decided by Parliament/politicians/parties is abhorrent.

That 30 Coalition politicians - members of a party NOT having same sex marriage on its platform - demanding a 'conscience' vote epitomises the arrogance and disdain for voters held by some politicians.

These 30 have no business being Coalition politicians. Parties are different, and people vote for parties which best suit their needs. The Coaltion is the closest thing to a conservative party we have in Australia. The Prime Minister has betrayed conservative voters already with his decision not to repeal Section 18C of the race act: but he has done the right thing by them this time. He rightly decided that the issue in hand was matter for us, and not the whims of politicians.

I have emailed a Senator supposed to be representing my state, asking him why he thought that his conscience was better or more important than that of the people he is supposed be representing and who pay his way. The probability that I will receive no responses is irrelevant. These people must be made to know that WE ARE ON TO THEM.

While some of us might not like the result of the people's decision, we will accept that the decision was democratic, and learn to live with it.

Though I disagree with a few details of your argument (like 18C) I agree with the sentiment. A referendum is the best way to side, and although the constitution doesn't require one, nor does the constitution prohibit one.

My one remaining concern is timing: despite the cost of holding it independently I'd rather it not be on election day as that could distract people from the government's dismal economic performance.

I look forward to voting on all of the governments contentious decisions.
If it is good enough for SSM then it is good enough for GST increases, pension cuts, GP tax, 100k uni degrees, the TPP and all the other "free" trade agreements, cuts to the dole, climate change etc etc.

This is nothing but a delaying tactic and a LIE.
Clownshoes will never have a plebiscite on SSM.
Anyone who believes a word this serial liar says has got to be certifiably gullible and willfully blind.

I somehow doubt whether this issue will go away
any time soon. Not if the opinion polls are any
guide. Whether the politicians like it or not -
the pressure for this to be resolved will continue
and a Referendum appears to be one of the best ways
to do it. However, someone suggested a postal vote
as a cheaper way of handling this matter.
Perhaps that would provide a more economical way of
handling things. The issue certainly can no longer
be ignored. The time has come for the issue to be
voted on.

Masterstroke by TA because how can you argue with a vote from all Australians? Gays blah blah blah are one per cent of the population and want to sue the rest of us into submission. It is just like Goodes they want to be admired and they want to be loved. I can do neither and wish they would go away and leave me alone.
I oppress no one because they are the oppressors, get a life and move on boys and girls!

ttbn "we will accept that the decision was democratic, and learn to live with it."

Not if the decision is No.
We will never hear the end of it (Fascist oppression!).

While I'm all for direct democracy, until this process is computerised, it's an incredibly expensive way to decide anything.

Implement digital direct democracy and we will have no need for cloned representatives and their "consciences".

Pleased to see Foxy and JB sticking to the topic.

Aidan managed to get the economy in. I don't know why you do that, mate, particularly given the stupendous spendathon inititiated by your Labor friends. With Bill promising more of same, without the surplus usually left behind by the Coalition, voters wont give thought to the Government's economic performance.

Mikk as as splenetic as ever, wanting to vote on everything that the Government wants to do. Good luck with that mate.

The thing is, a vote might very well give the green light to same-sex marriage. I wiil certainly be very disappointed by that, but at least I will be reassured that Australia is still a democracy. The voters wil have made the decision.

Shocadelic,

I should have said 'I' will accept it, but you might be surprised just how many people accept that democracy doesn't mean you get what you want all the time. After all, somewhere around half of us don't get the government we want at every election.

' The issue certainly can no longer
be ignored. The time has come for the issue to be
voted on.'

yeah quick quick Gillard/Rudd had close to 7 years and hardly a whimper from the regressives!

One minor little problem the coalition will have to win the next election, before we get a vote on the subject, my guess at this stage is they won't, and if labor wins then it will simply be put to the Parliament. Labor might have a problem getting the bill through the senate, but at this stage trying to guess who will hold the balance of power in the senate is a stab in the dark.

Wamair,

You have a point, but I hope your prediction on the election result is wrong. I hope that Australians would not forget the horrendous consequences of the last Labor governments after a mere three years. Given what they left behind, and the fact that Abbott is continuing to spend money that we don't have instead of reining in the Coalitions excesses, there will not be the usual surplus for Labor to plunder. I shudder to think of the consequences of another Labor government so soon; if Australian voters' memories are now so short, then we are doomed, and same sex 'marriage' will be the least of our concerns.

the average Australian might be required to think before getting a vote on gay 'marriage'. That is what the regressives are afraid of. Maybe a few more kids brought up by lesbians and men living in homosexual relationships might get a voice. That is the thing that makes the socialist bigots afraid.

Australia’s record with referendums are against a yes vote and I would suspect Abbott and any one else would be aware of that. 33 No Votes and 8 Yes votes over the time of AU parliament. This would just be another nail for Tony’s cronies

ttbn, sadly, even if the people do decide to leave things as they are, the gays won't accept the verdict.

Even if the gay activists get what they want it will not stop there. But then they only imagine they are running the show.

There are homosexuals who already have the rights they want and would like to live their life unobtrusively and in peace. Fat chance!

Then there are the attention-seeking, bullying gay activists who are being led by the nose by the Cultural Marxists with their own secondary agenda.

Against the will of the broader homosexual community, many of whom do NOT want to be hobbled by State regulation, the leftist 'Progressives', the Cultural Marxists who dominate Labor and the feckless Greens, have already legislated changes to de facto 'relationships'(sic, 'relationships' NOT marriage is the feminist-sanctioned and preferred PC word).

As a result, homosexuals' private lives are 'equally'(got to love that!) as subject to State control as heterosexuals, with public bureaucrats and courts presuming to tell them if they are in a 'relationship' or not and ruling how they should divvy up their assets when they go their private way.

Whereas not so long ago, before the interfering leftist 'Progressives' secretly tuned-up those de facto relationship arrangements, homosexuals could sort out their relationships and break-ups all by themselves. Now the State intervenes, so call that 'progressive'!

The Cultural Marxists could not give a hoot about homosexual freedom and lifestyles, they are just using homosexuals as a wrecking ball against 'traditional'(sic) society and its institutions.

otb,

Let it go.

Your obsessive consistent bleating regarding the Greens,
the Leftists, the so called "cultural Marxists,"
should be backed up by relevant evidence and facts.
Otherwise you come across as just another Right-Wing
Blowhard - who should be ignored.

Sad-really.

Certainly the term marriage as needed to be recorded by the State needs clear definition. Example: "Marriage is a union between a man and a woman who intend to raise a family".The State only needs to record couples who are intending to have children and raise a family from their union. Marriage has always included that intent.

The reason being the birth of children changes the population of citizens, and identifies those responsible for children. Those that have children before registering their marriage at the registration of the birth of the child must be recorded as married and responsible for the upbringing of the child. Those intending marriage should have their genetic map recorded to ensure there are no gene deformities likely in any children they wish to have, so as to reduce future health costs to the State.

People who cannot have children because of age or physical disability should be able to form relationships that are not recorded by the State, this would include homosexuals.

Josehpus,

I suggest there is a middle ground where the best of both worlds could be preserved. That might not suit those at eithe end of the spectrum, but it would give practicality, peace and coexistence to the mainstream, who are quite fed up and want to get on with their lives.

What I have said elsewhere is that a 'yes' or a 'no', black or white, is a recipe for a running sore of discontent on both sides.

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.

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

Rechtub,

They might not accept a 'no' decision, but there is not much they can do about it unless a future Labor government ignored democracy and brought it in - always a possiblity.

Or, the whole thing could fizzle out. I often wonder how serious some of these activists are. It is hard to believe homosexuality has afflicted so many people. Many of them could be just immature kids, vulnerable to fads who get a kick out dressing up for a Mardi Gras out of sheer boredom.

How many of them overseas ACTUALLY GET MARRIED after all the fuss has died down?

I can accept that there are genuine homosexual people who did not choose to be different; many of whom don't expect or want special treatment. But, I also believe that many people, particularly young ones, could be just experimenting, thinking it is the in thing to claim to be gay.

If there is any chance of all of that, it would be a huge mistake to overturn ages of tradition for something as petty and meaningless.

ttbn "the fact that Abbott is continuing to spend money that we don't have instead of reining in the Coalitions excesses, there will not be the usual surplus for Labor to plunder."

Maybe that's their "strategy".

People expect the goodies when Labor's in office, but there won't be any. HA-HA!
Then we see Labor in its true pathetic light.

onthebeach, yes the "progressives" are using gays, like they use anything else, as part of their wrecking ball.

Weren't progressives telling "wimmin" that marriage is a prison, slavery, in the burn-your-bra 70s?

How else can you explain progressives simultaneous enthusiasm for gay/women's rights *and* for Muslims (the most sexist homophobic people on Earth).

They will do anything to undermine "the establishment"/"the system".
Even if they contradict themselves.

Yes, now gay relationships are "recognised", Centrelink has to interrogate *all* shared living arrangements, lest any "relationship" slip through the cracks and get two full payments!

There was quite a lot of bitching in the gay community when they were "liberated" by that "reform".

"Gay" is not a leftist issue. If only more gays would see this and stop voting for these drongos.

There is always the horrifying prospect that warmair could be right, & Labor/Greens could get back into power.

In that case poofter marriage or no poofter marriage would be of no importance. The country would be such a disaster zone that any thinking people would have to become boat people, illegally immigrating to somewhere with more prospects of a successful economy, such as PNG or the Solomon Islands.

Just a few seconds looking at the stupidity of the Labor ladies club here in Old will show they have learnt nothing.

Hasbeen, Australia is financially sovereign: we own the Reserve Bank and can always borrow from them if we need to. So even if the Liberals left us with twice as much debt as Greece has, we would still have as much ability to afford a stimulus as we would if we had no debt at all.

Because the Australian population is purchasing the majority of their goods from overseas, money is leaving Australia creating unemployment and debt to Government coffers while we have an ageing population and increasing need for welfare and medical care Australia is running into greater debt.

All relationships outside of marriage if it involves property and family need a civil contract.

Government, particularly the previous Labor governments that were in for six years, but the LNP too, have failed the public by allowing the superficial pro- and anti- rhetoric of either end of the spectrum to dominate. It has been a circus.

There has been very little independent information given to the public to assist ordinary citizens to examine, to soberly compare and contrast the consequences of pursuing either path. However there is a central path of compromise too, a far less disruptive choice where both sides can profit, that is strangely always ignored by the gay marriage activists.

The public needs to understand why that is so too.

Why is it that unnecessarily disrupting the whole meaning of marriage as it has been practiced and understood by millions of Australians, migrants too, is seen as essential by gay activists and the Cultural Marxists and radical feminists behind them? It should not be forgotten that millions have entered into contracts with a definite, traditional expectations.

However the forces behind the present gay marriage push have always disrespected marriage AND FAMILY (the feminists have even sternly criticised and sledged mothers who breast-feed), stating outright that it is all highly unacceptable to them and should be dispensed with forthwith.

It is difficult to believe that such forces do not still perceive the trashing of marriage, family and fatherhood as their primary aim, to re-engineer society to match their political idealism, and gay marriage is just a stepping stone towards that.

What hope for the public to get what they want when they are being denied independent information as an educated, politically-astute elite dominates with their highly manipulative, brain-busting Hegelian-Marxist dialectic?

Make no mistake, the future for marriage as far as those media-savvy feminists and Cultural Marxists are concerned is anything but an exclusive one of one commitment, hopefully for life.

The taxpayer-funded national broadcaster is a shameless advocate, not a reliable informant for the public.

Thinking about the future, this is an informative article,
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

otb,

The website that you've classified as "Informative,"
and kindly provided for us - leaves a lot to be desired.

You neglected to tell us that the "Family Research
Council," which published this so called "informative,"
article is an American ultra conservative group and
lobbying organisation, formed in the US in 1981 by none
other than the notorious evangelical (though not an
ordained minister) James Dobson. The organisation was
incorporated in 1983.

It is a Pro Traditional Marriage and Pro Life (anti abortion)
Organisation. In the 1980s James Dobson was ranked as one of
the most influential spokesman for
conservative social positions in the US.

"Beat your Dog, Spank Your Kid, Go to Heaven..." Dobson.

Still I can understand your finding this "informative."
After all this appears somewhat of a pattern in your
posts. You criticise the websites of others
as being "biased," and yet you link to these rather
questionable sites, as for example the one you gave
earlier - linked to Paul Austin Murphy (PAM) -
the small-time and ultra-bitchy British blogger
associated with the political hard-right in the UK whose
favourite subjects include - how virtually all Muslims
want to establish a totalitarian state, how far-leftists
are actually influential and want to do the same - (those
awful "cultural Marxists," don't you know). He shoe-horns
everything to Communism and Islam.

"Informative" is not a term that comes to mind.
But if you find it so - fair enough - who are we
to doubt you.

LOL, Whooshka! Immediate fox scat to:

- bury any post that presents alternative opinion to the locked-step, simplistic mantras of the radical leftist elements behind gay marriage who have always disrespected marriage AND FAMILY (the feminists have even sternly criticised and sledged mothers who breast-feed), stating outright their intent to destroy marriage; and

- poison the well against anyone who questions the leftist narrative.

But of course as one of the forums relentless advocates for the extreme position of demanding a total upset and rejigging of the whole concept of marriage as it has and is understood by the millions who are married you would side-step the issues and NOT want to discuss the likely negative consequences of your radicalism.

You would never want the rather obvious effective, eminently practical, workable compromise alternatives, one that I have mentioned in this and other posts to surface for discussion either.

It is a very sad situation indeed where the public will be required to vote on a very extreme change that will, not could, change the very essence of existing and future marriage, without ever being properly informed.

As noted before, the previous Labor governments were in for six years and never even looked like preferring the extreme activist position on gay marriage now taken by Labor opposition leader Shorten.

Julia Gillard, Australia's first female PM objected to gay marriage. Six years of Greens 'Protest' Party (Julia Gillard was right about Protest Party!) gay activism disruption of the important business of the Labor-led federal parliament. However those governments consistently failed in their public duty by allowing the superficial rhetoric of gay activism to dominate.
contd..

Of course the Rudd and Gillard governments saw gay marriage as very small concern in the scheme of things. They were right about that.

However, now that Labor leader Shorten and his front bench (many ex-Gillard government) have become obsessed with gay marriage and see it as far more important than unemployment, 'Struggle Streets', drugs and so on, Labor should in all conscience be explaining why and discussing risks and the future of marriage. It is a lie that the only change will be a few gays choosing to publicise their 'love'.

It is rather odd, some would say unconscionable, that Shorten and Labor have no bottle for considering the practical alternatives, but are slavishly in lock-step with the Cultural Marxists and Gay Pride, promoting the extreme radical change, trashing the meaning of marriage as it is understood and has been understood since 1901.

Frankly, now that marriage is being re-engineered it is high time that the increasing number of singles demanded to know why they should be required to pay for other people's 'love'. What about getting rid of those couple advantages, concessions and lurks that singles miss out on and must inevitably have to subsidise directly or indirectly?

Why should singles have to pay for gay love, on top of copping the short end of the stick for gays and heteros who don't even commit for marriage and regard their de facto 'relationships'(sic) as temporary anyhow? The 'Progressive' Cultural Marxists have been active there too with their social experimentation.

Why should singles be forced to pay for the 'love' choices of others anyhow?

otb,

No matter what the subject of any discussion is
on this forum you always shoe horn everything to
your locked-step simplistic mantras of the hard right-
wing blowhards. Just taking a page out of your
book, old chap. You continually try to bury any post
that presents an alternative opinion to the political
hard-right.

As for poisoning the well?

You're way ahead on that score.

otb,

BTW - kindly provide me with evidence where I am
for the "rejigging of the concept of marriage."
I have consistently stated that the Australian
voters should decide on this issue with a vote.
However in your mind that seems to translate to
"rejigging of the concept of marriage."

I have consistently stated that a Referendum was the
way to settle this matter. To you that of course is
an "extremist" point of view.

I can't take anything you say seriously.

onthebeach "Why should singles be forced to pay for the 'love' choices of others anyhow?"

Yes, you bring up a core question that is entirely overlooked in this "debate".

Why are people in relationships (of any kind) treated differently under law/official policy to single people?

Relationships may come and go, but everyone is an individual being from the day they're born to the day they die.

Perhaps we need the government/law to "recognise" only individual people, and remain neutral to all "relationships".

For those opposing, if it is legalised, a suggested tactic:
Provide your usual products/services *until* a gay couple walk into your shop.

When they ask for a wedding cake/whatever, you say you don't make them.

If they point to a wedding cake on the shelf, you say "That's old, we're throwing it out".

You then lay low for a few weeks (declining to any other enquiries, in case you're being monitored), by which time they will find services somewhere else and forget they ever went into your store.

The catch is you can't *ever* openly advertise that you cater to weddings/honeymoons.
It must all be under-the-counter.

Today, any credible poll shows an ever increasing, comfortable
majority support same-sex marriage. All that is being
asked is that our PM allow his MPs and Senators to vote
from their conscience on this issue with a "free vote."

Sadly, this "free vote," has been denied the MPs and Senators
by the most conservative elements of the Liberal and
National Parties.

That is not how a democracy is supposed to work.

'That is not how a democracy is supposed to work.'

and the six years Gillard/Rudd did nothing was fine Foxy. I don't remember you criticising them once. All the regressives gleefully demanded a referendum after Ireland. Now they are afraid they might lose. Try a little balance just for once Foxy instead of backing your 'team'.

Dear runner,

Thanks for your concern - however -

I'm not backing any "team,"
only my own conscience.
Which I take it - is what you're doing as well.
That's all any of us can do on any issue. -
But especially one as controversial as this one.

As for what policies or criticisms any one makes
or doesn't make about any government or political
party - that needs to be taken in the context of those
times and the relevant policies involved as to why people
choose to support or oppose things.

Have a nice day.

cont'd ...

Why are you so fearful of a "free-vote?"

Foxy - nothing can be freer than a vote by all Australians, what are you afraid of?

Dear JBower,

Exactly what I've been saying all along old chap.
Go back and read my posts.

cont'd ...

I've been stating that a Referendum is the
way to go! Of course a free-vote would have
settled this matter much earlier and quicker.

Regardless of sentiment a referendum is only for constitutional matters. The High Court has determined that this matter of same sex marriage can be determined by parliament. Indeed that is why they were elected for the will of the people.
The will of the majority is plainly for same sex marriage. So let it happen.

lamp, the constitution does not require a referendum for this, but nor does it prevent parliament from setting one.

The will of the people is far from clear, firstly because many haven't given it serious thought and secondly because phone polls don't guarantee a true representation.

A referendum's the best option, but it should be BEFORE the next election.

To me, it is not a question of the people or the guvment having to do anything in relation to SSM.

It is rather a question of what "we" must stop doing, which is to say,

1. We must not presume that we have any legitimate right to regulate sexual relations between consenting adults.

2. We must stop discriminating.

3. We must stop "hurting" these people in all of the ways that we do.

We would do well to remember the quite recent apology made to the gay man who cracked the Enigma code during WWII by Charlie Winza on behalf of the crown.

What an inspired and towering intellect that arguably changed the course of the war (so much for Coventry though.)

Unfortunately, he was terribly persecuted in the aftermath of his remarkable achievements for his sexual preferences.

..

If we stop/remove discrimination etc then matters such as SSM etc will naturally follow as a consequence.

The constant claim that the issue is "discrimination" is a non issue, as it is not a basic human right, otherwise single people could also claim discrimination. The marriage contract is not based in the love between two persons; it is a contract of denial of personal rights and self sacrifice to the exclusion of and the responsibility to the mutual care of family. It is a contract between a man and a woman [an agreement at law] not a human right that causes discrimination if excluded.

DreamOn, it's been many a year since any homosexual was chemically castrated, imprisoned or electro-shocked.

Those days are long gone.

People are claiming they want "marriage" when they actually want the romantic trappings (weddings), which are symbolic and have nothing to do with the law.

Government bureaucracy and most private business policies already "recognise" gay relationships *without* the legal status, just like de facto straight couples.

You can have the symbolism (cakes, rings, etc) any time you want.
You can already have the relationship "recognised" in almost any context (whether you want it or not. See: Centrelink).
You can love and have sex with any other adult.

So what are the activists "fighting" for that is worth the hassle and cost of a referendum?

Shokadelic - they want to be loved and admired and woe betide you if you do not do that! That would be discrimination so if you do not profess love and shout admiration you had better look out. There are remedies the gay community can take against you, and me come to that. Understand now?

JBowyer,
What a lot of nonsense, the act of marriage is not going to change how people treat each other. If they are not loved already by society then having partners the same will no change how others treat them. We have racist laws but that does not stop racism.

MARRIAGE IS A CONTRACT BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN TO CARE FOR EACH OTHER IN SICKNESS AND HEALTH; PRIMARILY IN RAISING THEIR FAMILY. It denies personal freedoms and accepts responsibility to the other. IT IS NOT merely A LOVE CEREMONY. The ceremony isself not the marriage, or the paper they sign. The paper is only a record before the law that they have made this promise to each other. Anyone two people can make such a promise, but it does not mean they are husband and wife.

I have a married friend who made a contract with his dying carpenter mate before he passed away to take care of his disabled wife. He and his wife now care for her, they are not married to her, he is her legal guardian.

There are other threads around the same subject as this one.

My posts in the thread 'Why are gays not prepared to compromise' are also relevant here. For economy here is the link to two replies (on one page),

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6959&page=26

Same-Sex marriage is a conscience issue and an
important change that's being proposed therefore
surely all sides of the debate have an equal right
to be heard instead of being demonised.

The following website gives an overview:

http://theconversation.com/why-Australia-is-so-far-behind-the-times-on-same-sex-marriage-42327

Foxy, an article titled "Why Australia is so far behind the times on same-sex marriage" hardly indicates "all sides of the debate have an equal right to be heard"

It presumes one side only is valid.

Note the pro-side always talks of "love" (as if "love" must by definition be monogamous and only one sexuality, whether straight or gay, but never bisexual, bigamous or incestous) and portrays the anti-side as exclusively "religious" (as if there's no non-religious basis for objection.)

Both presumptions are false.

The marriage act says nothing about "love" and people can "love" both sexes, multiple partners or biological relatives.

Yet no activism for bisexuals, multi-partner or incestous "marriage", which will still be prohibited.

A quite secular, scientific and logical opposition to homosexuality is easily deduced: natural purpose of genitalia = reproduction = obligatory heterosexuality.

I don't agree with that deduction, but it is *possible* to logically hold that perception and it has nothing to do with "God".

Dear Shocker,

Did you read the website?

It gives a general overview of Australia's
current position on same-sex
marriage. It is not an argument pro or anti
same-sex marriage. I thought it would add something
to the debate as a general comment.

Yes, of course I read it.
It isn't balanced.
It's basically one side moaning about the fact that their view isn't standard operating procedure, as usual.

Did you know the marriage act even prohibits people *adopted* into a family marrying within it?
Even if they *cease* to be adopted!

Why is the focus of "reform" so narrow?
Why is it still illegal to marry a relative (even an adopted one?) or more than one person?

If it's really about "love" between consenting adults, why stop at just monogamous gay couples?

You can't "love" your sister, your adopted sister, your sister and your boyfriend, your sister and your boyfriend and his adopted brother?

Seems we still have "some way to go".

Dear Shocker,

I keep making the same mistake of
inter-acting with you.
I should have known better.

You should have known you have no valid comeback to my spotlighting the hypocrisies and inconsistencies of the pro- argument.

Dear Shocker,

Yeah, right.

You go on believing that.

The website explains the history of this issue in this
country.

BTW:

I don't have to even try - when A.J. Philips
has done such a good job on the article thread
on this issue.

You go on believing that.

Dear Shocker,

My views unlike yours are not set in concrete.

The public will decide when they are properly informed that marriage is not a "Love ceremony" but a legal contract of responsibilities to a person for life. The current population view marriage as "Two people who love each other" so when they no longer love each other they no longer want to be married. Make it binding for life and remove the no fault divorce state and see who wants marriage. The contract they initiate in marriage states the responsibilities to each other. There ought to be monetary penalties to the person who breaks the contract

It's amazing to hear zealots like *josephus* spouting his normal range of unmitigated clap trap. Clearly he is quite clueless when it comes to exactly what does and does not constitute discrimination.

He and those like him (who are perhaps too ashamed to admit which religious organisation they are associated with) should not be heard as far as I am concerned.

There are a number of reasons I say that.

1. These organisations (who complain the loudest about legitimising other than heterosexual relationships)are quite criminal in that not only did they not report child abuse, not only were they dismissive of legitimate complaints and thereby terribly betrayed the community, but they did harbor, aid and albeit and then release sexual predators upon a trusting and unsuspecting community and then went to extraordinary lengths to try and hide the fact.

Worse still, say in the case of criminals like *RatSinger* from the vatican, they do not even accept (it appears) that they have done anything wrong.

2. There is ongoing harm being committed against homosexuals in the form of lack of fully equivalent recognition by the law (thus discrimination), bullying, psychological and emotion abuse and even so called "poofter bashing" still occurs.

Can you imagine what it must be like being a young gay person whose fool parents have sent them to one of thee filthy little pedophile church schools who advertise quite openly on their web sites that homosexuality is an abomination.

And at the other end of the scale I note the comment of the distinguished former high court judge (by conventional standards at least) who said something to the effect of:

"So, I can be registered like a dog can I?"

Whilst I imagine that he is a tough skinned old bird given he can tolerate having to investigate the horrors of crimes against humanities (i.e.North Korea) I suspect that deep down that the fact that his relationship is not afforded the same recognition and status as others is a deep and ongoing hurt.

And then, as to exactly what constitutes marriage (and notwithstanding the misguided efforts of some to impose a narrow definition) it is an area in fact which is very diverse.

Essentially, marriage is a sacrament for many religious organisations and the nature of the "contract" can vary quite considerably.

For example, my favorite Church
(The Independent Church of Australia)
http://ica.org.au/activities/sacraments.html

whose founder first "married" 2 girls in 1971 in Perth, W.A. if I do not misrecall, has quite a number of different marriage ceremonies, including "The Covenant of Love" for those couples who are currently not included in the legal definition of marriage.

So, when considering the likes of *Josephus,* what you have is the propagation of a view which entirely turns on their own personal religious beliefs and nothing else.

I have no problem with that per se however, when they try and inflict their muddle headed views on everyone else it becomes a serious political problem.

So, you see them clutching and grasping at any argument they think will give them traction, but it is disingenuous, as all it is really founded in is their perverted desire to inflict their religious beliefs on everyone else, and that of course will not be tolerated.

So we note DreamOn does not tolerate anyone's view but his own, as he states; "but it is disingenuous, as all it is really founded in is their perverted desire to inflict their religious beliefs on everyone else, and that of course will not be tolerated."
Note - who is the Bully? Who is intolerant? Who will not allow diversity?

Marriage is not a religious belief as it was first formalised by a ancient Roman Government based on biological reality of who could produce citizens of the State.

I believe the only people who needs to be registered by the Government as married, are women of childbearing age in a permanent relationship with a man who by giving birth can change the statistics of citizens; all other relationships of same sex and aged women past child bearing can formalise their relationship with a civil contract to cover property, next of kin, and inheritance e.t.c.

Foxy,

Who is A.J. Phillips? I don't see that name anywhere here.

Dear ttbn,

I did refer to the article thread -
not here.

Try "Tony Abbott's conscience and rainbow sails ...."

BTW: He's been a poster for many years, and a brilliant
one at that.

Hi Foxy,

There was an article on 24/8/15 titled "Tony Abbott's Conscience and the rainbow sails in the sunset" but written by a Hugh Harris, first time contributor. Not A.J. Phillips. Wrong article? Plagiarism?

Foxy is referring to the comments section.
Where I am allegedly "owned". ROFL!

Yes, I incorrectly thought she was referring to an article from a contributor, not a poster. I don't agree with her assessment of the poster in question.

Dear ttbn,

I've known him for far longer than you.

Still to each their own.