Some women have bi-sexual husbands.
Can't imagine any woman being happy with her husband coming back after
a visit to his boyfriend and then getting into bed with her.
Hmm sums it all up I guess.

Dear Bazz,

Are you talking about child abuse?

Did you know that child abuse - involving such
acts as burning children with cigarettes, locking
them up in closets, tying them up for hours or
days, or breaking their bones - is alarmingly
common amongst heterosexual couples and
probably causes many of the million runaways
that happen each year - and the sexual abuse of
children - now recognised as a national epidemic
is rarely a matter of molestation by a stranger.
It is usually perpetrated by one family member on
another.

As for how would a woman feel if her bi-sexual
husband slept with another man and
came home and then slept with her? I imagine it
would be the same
as she would feel if her straight husband had
slept around and then came home to sleep with
her. I know my husband wouldn't do it. He's
probably scared of what I'd do to him if he tried
it. I think that sort of behaviour is risky for
any couple - gay or straight once they're in a
committed relationship. You never know how your
better half will react - and is it worth the risk?
Remember the woman who chopped off her partner's
genitals? I think it was in the US a few years ago.
Something to think about Bazz.

Banjo,

Lucky for you, then, you are in a rapidly shrinking minority there - contrary to your claims.

I don’t think you’ll have much to worry about. In fact, nowadays, greater equality within the institution of marriage will lend it more prestige.

--

runner,

That would be a rather arrogant claim to make.

<<And AJ claims to be rational.>>

I strive to hold rational beliefs, but I have never claimed to be rational. However, I will happily claim to be more rational than you. Damn near everyone here is.

Like Josephus, you confuse social constructs with biology.

mhaze,

It may be a different standard, but for so long as you cannot provide a justification as to why the two instances should be treated differently, it’s also a double-standard.

<<I'm opposed to anything that weakens the natural nuclear family.>>

And how would same-sex marriage do that, exactly? Do you think these people will go off and have traditional families if they’re not allowed to marry?

Incidentally, what's nature got to do with it?

<<… I oppose those things that do the opposite [to enhancing the viability and prestige of the nuclear family].>>

How will same-sex marriage do this?

<<… having realised … your error, you then studiously refused to take the next logical step - reexamine your views.>>

Wrong once again. This is the second time you’ve repeated this specific lie.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7734#238220

I re-examined my claim without any coaxing from you beyond a rejection of my claim and, as it turned out, I only got one point wrong. Yet you parade this one incident around like some sort of a trophy because your vacuous opinions force you to rely on slander.

<<… I decided to test that by presenting you with a view that, clearly, you hadn't examined.>>

Actually, I had. My error made little difference to my argument. You then had to slink off after I asked you to expand on your position.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7363#227163

<<… I'd hoped that you'd at least accept that the 'no' case had some validity.>>

My error lent no validity to the 'no’ case.

<<The fact that they are having kids doesn't legitimise the arrangement.>>

That’s beside my point. Which, I might add, you’re evading again.

<<And the fact that they are having kids doesn't mean that we fail to recognise that those kids are at a disadvantage and seek to discourage the arrangement that causes that disadvantage.>>

You are yet demonstrate that they are at a disadvantage.

Once again, though, if the children are at a disadvantage, then it makes no sense to make the situation worse by denying these families something that would promote stability and reduce stigmatisation.

Try again, mhaze.

Foxy, for goodness sake, you should get a job making twisties !
The risk I drew attention to has absolutely nothing to do with what
happens in a hetrosexual marriage,
I am talking about an EXTRA risk which has to be a real risk.
You cannot try and pat down the risk by talking about something else.

If I'm to vote on this issue I'll be voting 'No'.
The reason I'll be voting 'No' is basically out of pure selfishness.
I'm not gay, and I see no benefit to myself whatsoever in voting 'Yes'.

Some people might think this is a bad attitude to have.
But why should I support something that does not benefit me?
That's how the majority of the country acts now, don't they?

Australia's 'Fair Go' policy is finished in my opinion.
The country has been hijacked by liberal progressive mentalcases, and they've set the new rules.
So don't blame me, I don't care.

I might have gone along with SSM but they went too far pushing and normalising the gay agenda to young kids in schools.
And for that, you'll not get one bit of sympathy from me.

Targetting kids with a perverted agenda is wrong, and I'm not going to support anything that does not directly benefit me...