It will be interesting to see if Get Up organises teams to follow
the post men around the day the poll letters are delivered.
They always organise for political events.
This one would be very tempting.

But not members of the same sex, mhaze.

<<I support interracial marriage between a man and a woman.>>

So again, why the double-standard?

<<I was deriding your reaching back into pre-me history by doing likewise.>>

Yes, I know. I was doing the same by highlighting the fact that at least my question was analogous.

<<… ponder that all anti-sodomy laws were repealed by the revolutionary councils while so-called republican marriage was encouraged.>>

Please, do go on.

<<Marriage is a mechanism to facilitate the best arrangements for the raising of the next generation ...>>

That’s one of its intended functions, yes. This doesn’t address my point that you’re responding to, though. Same-sex couples are already having children.

<<Homosexual marriage isn't.>>

Correct. Neither is heterosexual. They are forms of sexuality. But if you don’t think it is possible for a homosexual couple to be married, regardless of what society allows, then please state why? I’ll be fascinated to see what authority it is that you cite.

<<'Flexible' thinking?>>

You didn't include part where I corrected myself. I wonder why that is?

You carry on as if I should be embarrassed by my memory’s failure there. And this from someone who tries to claim that he leaves debates to allow his opponents to retain a modicum of respect too, mind you. You don’t. All you know is slander.

Again, your repeating of this incident is dishonest. I’d also note that it seems to be the only factual error from me that you can cite. It’s getting older and older, mhaze.

<<[Flexible thinking is] required so that you can think that only religious fanatics oppose homosexual marriage …>>

Really now? Since when have I ever implied that opposition to same-sex marriage is confined to the religious?

<<… while (judiciously) forgetting that less than a decade ago the likes of …>>

Judiciously now? And how did I forget this?

It is simply breathtaking how dishonest you are.

<<… AJ wonders why I think single parenthood has been detrimental to society.>>

No, I wondered HOW you thought it was detrimental. I was getting to a point.

Dear Shadow Minister,

It may interest you to know that for quite a few decades
now social welfare agencies in New York and other large cities
have been placing orphaned or runaway gay teenage youngsters - who
are unwelcome in hetererosexual foster homes in the custody of
gay couples.

Sorry, mhaze. I misread this part:

<<Marriage is a mechanism to facilitate the best arrangements for the raising of the next generation ie a natural father and natural mother. Homosexual marriage isn't.>>

(No doubt I'll be hearing about that for the next few years. You know, given that you're such a great guy and all with how you like to leave people with a modicum of self-respect.)

So I would alter my response by asking what your evidence is for the requirement for both genders. You continue to assert that there is a need there, but never get specific when asked to expand on why.

You also completely evaded my points regarding the fact that same-sex couples are already having kids.

So, we know that it's not really about the children with you.

Foxy, "..social welfare agencies in New York and other large cities have been placing orphaned or runaway gay teenage youngsters - who are unwelcome in hetererosexual foster homes in the custody of gay couples"

Quite a dump on those 'nasty heterosexual' foster parents there, huh?

The 'unwelcome in heterosexual homes' bit is highly unlikely. Something is missing in the storytelling there.

But surely the maligning of many thousands of foster parents and the divisive wedge are quite unnecessary (and untrue).

Foxy,

I am aware of the programs and I think that they are doing a lot of good. However, there is a world of difference between placing in foster care a teenager who has identified as gay with a gay couple that can make him/her feel at home, and placing a baby with a non-traditional family.

It's not that I have anything against non-traditional families and know a couple of two mum families and single parent families generally not through choice, who do the very best they can. However, I also know a few couples that have tried to adopt, and that the competition is so fierce that for one couple, even after going through years of scrutiny proving they were ideal parents (signed in triplicate by God), eventually they were refused on the basis of their age.