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.