Poirot,
Wait and see, it'll be interesting to see how many heterosexual people are sued or dragged into the courts for "causing offence" to homosexuals during the campaigns for the plebiscite.
Anti discrimination laws don't apply to White, heterosexual, able bodied people so there you have a disparity or a state of inequality right off the bat, we have no protection under human rights laws and militant minorities have in the past shown few scruples in using HR laws to their advantage.

JoM,

Like I said to Foxy, on this matter the only reason for a plebiscite is to whip up division and bad faith - and to waste a lot of time and money to stall the process.

It could all be done quite simply by reversing Johnny Howard's interference.

If people are into abusing others (for whatever reason) and they get pinged for it - so be it!

AJ wrote..." The nuclear family was only the most common form of family between the '40s to the '70s."

Well, again, that's rubbish. There is more than enough evidence to show that it has been the dominant form of social structure in N-E Europe since at least the 13h century. Again I refer you to the historians I mentioned earlier. Interesting to see that you've fallen for the myths perpetrated by the activist homosexual community hook line and sinker.

AJ you've been claiming to have examined all the arguments and arrogantly dismissed them as bigotry. But clearly you haven't examined them all or you've dismissed them based on ignorance. Arrogance based on ignorance isn't a pretty trait.

AJ also tells me I'm wrong to think that this will lead to the end of civilisation or that violence is on the rise. Since I didn't mention either we can assume that AJ is most comfortable when attacking straw men. Still Rosy Batty and the lock-out laws supporters will be pleased to know that they are being unnecessarily alarmist.

If you don't know how we got to here, you really can't go making predictions about what the changes hold for the future

A J Philips:

You obviously do agree that the government should be in the marriage business since you are appealing for the government to change the way they do their business. It would be illogical to argue for them to change the definition of marriage if you did not think that it is reasonable for them to be the sole arbiter of what constitutes a marriage.

You obviously agree that any definition of marriage must include that it is a relationship which must be legally acknowledged by the government. So you agree that they should be in the marriage business – they should be the one who determines what a marriage is and what it is not.

Why should they have this authority or more specifically why do you personally acknowledge this authority? Many people without a certificate define their relationship as a marriage because they do not see government involvement as being necessary. They do not acknowledge the government as the sole judge of what constitutes a marriage. They are free to do this since it is not a crime to define your relationship as you see fit.

Why then do you obviously agree with the government that they should be the only ones who define marriage? Why not appeal to same-sex couples to just change their definition of marriage to be a relationship that does not need government approval? This would be much easier and a lot cheaper to arrange.

You go on a lot about ‘equality’. Same-sex couples could have equality if they changed their definition of marriage to that of being a relationship defined solely by the couple themselves. Why do you want equality in this matter to rest in the hands of the government when there is no good reason why it should? Why should same sex couples have such a rigid view of what defines a marriage? Anyone else who defines marriage as between a man and a woman is labelled a bigot but is not also bigotry to exclude couples who define marriage as not needing government involvement?

It seems that there are quite a lot of people who think we shouldn't be asking the people to decide this issue because some people might say some things that other people might not like to hear.

I'm not sure what sort of political system these people support, but it sure ain't democracy.

JoM,

I know you’ve given me facts (assuming they're even correct), but I've already explained to you why it's irrelevant how small the figures may be. Nevertheless, they are certainly not the only facts worthy of considering.

mhaze,

I checked one of my sociology textbooks (the source for my ‘’40s to ‘70s’ claim (http://www.booktopia.com.au/sociology-australia-john-bessant/prod9781741750164.html?source=pla&gclid=CNL207S3080CFYSVvQodz50Jiw)) and it only mentions those dates with regards to Australia. It doesn’t mention other Western counties as I thought I had remembered it doing.

It does, however, spend four pages debunking the claim that the nuclear family is the bedrock for civilisation and explains where the sociologist, George Murdoch (who first proposed this idea), went wrong. Obviously I can’t repeat it all in 350 words, but ultimately his problem was that much of his work was assumed as he was of the Durkheim Structural Functionalist school of thought, which assumes that if a particular phenomenon exists, then it is necessarily for reasons that are beneficial (which is why it is now a largely abandoned sociological perspective).

<<Interesting to see that you've fallen for the myths perpetrated by the activist homosexual community hook line and sinker.>>

No, I have actually studied this to some extent. I’m not your average gullible fool.

<<…you've been claiming to have examined all the arguments and arrogantly dismissed them as bigotry.>>

I’m open to the possibility that I have not yet heard all the arguments, but otherwise, yes. I have even explained why they are inadequate (the bigotry is implied once the claimant continues to cling to it without sufficiently explaining why I am wrong).

I'd like to pursue this further, but I have limited posts and currently have some flies buzzing around my head.

phanto,

<<You obviously do agree that the government should be in the marriage business since you are appealing for the government to change the way they do their business.>>

...for so long as they are in it. That doesn’t mean I believe that they should be. Until you can address what I actually say and not what you want me to be saying, I’m done with you.