Here here Cupric, agree totally. It is the situation that the Islamists
are taking advantage of as they repeatably keep telling us.
No children is promoted as a good thing by the left.
Yes, yes echo the Islamists.

As foxy said 'it is all about status and image' For years homosexuals have been trying to improve their public image. Firstly they promoted the word 'gay' and promoted the idea that homosexuality was normal behavior. This marriage caper is on the same agenda, their only aim is to up their image.

Homosexuals have not earned an improved image in the eyes of most people. They still engage in sexual acts that most people find obnoxious. Apparently the left is supporting them by trying to install a grooming process into schools to encourage homosexuality.

It is not surprising that supporters of SSM find it offensive to use the word 'queers' when referring to homosexuals. But after all queer only means abnormal and as 97% of people are hetrosexual then homosexuals must be classified as 'queer'. I wonder what deviate sexual practices one would have to engage in for foxy to agree to the word queer as a description.

I am digusted by the fact our politicians and media organisations are telling us what to think in a survey!

As a Labor voter I think Shorten is going to find out his voters don't like or agree with the way he has tried to assert the no vote have no rights to speak on what they consider the issue is.

To try and shutdown debate with specious reasoning is very very fishy behaviour from a yes vote campaign that alleges to want to have a respectful debate.

If it weren't for heterosexuals there wouldn't be a society or an industrial revolution or ivf to even discuss: we have our rights and I find this all a very very curious propaganda campaign from those who allege to represent us, the people.

This is a systemic issue and I call for a revolt. Big issues like the price of shelter for our own kids for instance cannot be talked about as things like immigration aren't allowed to be raised in attempts to properly identify the problem. We all know that a problem well defined is half solved but this is impossible with a rogue media and political class with dodgy ethical behaviours.

The high court will be under close scrutiny from a very wary electorate from now on I dare say.

What is this democracy and why are it's peoples views not allowed to be represented: it's a corruption, surely!(?)

Dear Banjo,

I've just sent my reply to you to the "False
Argument" discussion in error.

I can't be bothered re-typing it. You can go
there and read it for yourself.

I'm done here.

Cheers.

They don’t count for two reasons, Is Mise.

<<What about the status and dignity of heterosexual (i.e. couples of the opposite sex), perhaps, just perhaps, they all do not like their union being compared to that of a couple of hairy blokes who indulge in un-natural practices together?>>

Firstly, because if unnatural practices were a reason to discriminate, then there would be no discrimination, as all heterosexual couples practice unnatural sex acts, too (okay, maybe not Orthodox Jews with their missionary-only, hole-in-the-bedsheet sex).

Secondly, because bigotry isn’t a reason to discriminate. There are many people of many “races” who are against mixed marriages, but that doesn’t mean we should ban interracial marriage. If some feel that the status and dignity of their marriage will be adversely affected, then that is their own subjective and (more importantly, in this context) minority view and, therefore, something they need to work through themselves.

AJ,

"....heterosexual couples practice unnatural sex acts,...."

Speaking for yourself?

Although I must admit that I do indulge in an un-natural act every day or so. I shave the exposed (unbearded) parts of my face.