Why the inserted qualifier that it is now only 'heterosexual' couples? And 'many' is now a 'million'. Perhaps that is taking enthusiastic gay advocacy a mite too far.

@Foxy, Tuesday, 2 February 2010 9:47:01 AM,
Each year, too, 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, and
probably causes many runaways that happen each year.
And the sexual abuse of children is now recognized
as a national epidemic - is rarely a matter of
molestation by a stranger. It's usually perpetrated
by one family member on another."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3394&page=0

cf

@Foxy, Monday, 14 August 2017 8:13:21 PM
"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."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7880&page=15

AJ Philips wrote:

“Given the importance of equality, and the ease with which this issue could be resolved, I fail to see how it can be blown out of proportion”

The equality argument is a furphy. Gay folk are already equal.
What they seemingly fail to recognise is that they aren’t eligible.

Hi Foxy, you are correct in saying child abuse is at epidemic proportions. At both the children's hospitals in Sydney, Randwick and Westmead, police spend a lot of time interviewing adults about possible child abuse after mandatory reporting by doctors of suspected instances. Some more serious than others, and in some cases it is due to misadventure, but in others it is certainly child abuse.

I posted earlier about our gay niece and her partner in NZ who have taken in four children from the extended family and given them a warm and loving environment to be brought up in, at no small cost to themselves, even going to the extent of selling up and buying a larger house to accommodate. Our niece tells us the first six months with each pair was hell. They were all well below average at school, disobedient, withdrawn, angry, a whole mixed bag of emotions. But with perseverance and love the kids have made big improvements in their lives, both at home and at school. The girls want to take in two more children from the family, making it a total of six.
The belief that there is something wrong with having same sex parents is totally incorrect. The evidence shows otherwise.

Armchair Critic,

You’re right. That is very selfish.

<<I'm not gay, and I see no benefit to myself whatsoever in voting 'Yes'.>>

An educated selfish person, however, would vote ‘Yes’ as greater equality does indeed benefit everyone, to some degree or another.

<<But why should I support something that does not benefit me?>>

It sounds like you might be one of these people who require the belief in a god to behave morally. Like runner.

That fact that it WOULD benefit you to some degree aside: because you share space with everyone, and our actions have consequences. None of us live in a vacuum.

On second thoughts…

<<That's how the majority of the country acts now, don't they?>>

I think that's an oversimplification. Even if you’re right, though, that’s no reason to be selfish yourself. Why not be the change you want to see? You have a rotten attitude.

<<I might have gone along with SSM but they went too far pushing and normalising the gay agenda to young kids in schools.>>

So, the Safe Schools program is the fault of the gay community, is it? You're going to punish one group for the actions of another, just because there's some overlap?

What is this "gay agenda", by the way? I keep hearing about it, but no one ever seems to expand on what it is. Sounds like the product of paranoid thinking, to me.

Gay Agenda:
1. Have breakfast.
2. Go to work.
3. Come home.
4. Fight for marriage equality.

Sounds sinister!

--

Dustin,

You don’t see the glaring contradiction in your post?

<<The equality argument is a furphy. Gay folk are already equal.>>

If gay people are equal, then they should be treated equally.

<<What they seemingly fail to recognise is that they aren’t eligible.>>

And why is that? Because they’re not a male and a female? Why is that a reason?

You haven’t been following this thread very closely, have you?

Armchair said;
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.

It is the purpose of an election to determine the opinion of everyone
and it is necessary to vote to express your self interest.
Unless everyone votes in their own interest then the result is distorted.

The agenda of the extreme SSM lobby groups are using the marriage equality term to further push their ultimate goal. They oppose the Christian view of homosexuality, prostitution, pornography, immorality and adultery; as for Christians these are all classed as sin against one's body and God. For them there is no sin against God. There is no god and no ultimate accounting of one's life. Their agenda is to make these all acceptable practises in society. It would look the law of the jungle, whatever feels good do it.

The have picked a target audience to imply they are not equal and create a sympathy for them, so this weakens the view of those that uphold the moral 10 commandment standards.