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.