Paul,

That might have been your experience; some people are more susceptible to outside influence than others. However, your experience is not mine. The "social environment (I was) born into" was dogmatic Left Labor. I threw that off, and thought for myself - my views, values and opinions could not be more different from those I was brought up with.

I re-affirm that I think that people who keep quoting claptrap from Google, or anywhere else, thinking that they are proving something, are piss weak and wasting my time and the time of other people who think for themselves using their 'God-given' common sense and natural abilities.

Dear ttbn,

I do appreciate your explanations of where you're
coming from and why.

Being raised in a very conservative family I can
understand your point of view.

My younger brother is a Principal at a regional Catholic
School. He and his wife visited us in Melbourne recently
and inevitably we discussed same-sex marriage. His
views were that marriage is a sacrament. I won't say
anymore. This is an issue that will continue to be debated.
Hopefully however, we shall see less violent reactions to
this issue. I've stated in the past - nobody likes or
supports an illogical and abusive debater.

I wonder if we've got all of this 'equality' aspect wrong: a contract may be between equals, but it would involve the exchange of disparate goods and/or services. A brick-maker doesn't exchange bricks with another brick-maker, but he/she would exchange bricks for money: equals, but contributing different factors to a contract, and undertaking different obligations: you get the bricks, he/she gets the money for them.

Same with a marriage, a contract between equals, but exchanging different services: if we go back sixty years or so, when men were assumed to be the bread-winners for their wives and prospective families, and perhaps for many decades, while the women - in those days before effective birth control - undertook to have the kids, look after the house and provide for the bloke's needs. i.e. 'equals' but having very different roles, with very different vulnerabilities. He had the career, she stayed home.

So marriages had to be very public - in fact, in societies around the world, the more vulnerable a wife may be, or become, the more public the ceremony had to be - to enforce the sense of permanence and indissolubility of the union, to bind the bloke, and his family, to the union, exclusively and for life.

Then no-fault divorce and recognition of de facto relations were introduced, to lessen the dependent nature for women in marriage. In other words, the 'safer'or more secure a relationship might be for women in the eyes of the law, the less need there may be for marriage at all.

Just saying :)

Foxy,

Your suggestion that I am an "illogical and abusive debater" is hysterical, to say the least. There is nothing I can do, or wish to do, to convince you that I am not "illogical", or "abusive"; but I really baulk at being called a "debater". I do not debate. I express opinions. Unlike some others on Online OPINION, I am not trying to convince or convert; I am expressing my PERSONAL opinions. You, on the other hand, seem (to me) mainly interested in having the last say on everything, and your obsession with quoting Left wing sources clearly demonstrates your political bias, which yes, is the opposite to mine.

I don't really think that we have anything to say to each other any more. I am loath to compare anyone with AJ Philips, but I have to say that I will now ignore you a la Philips in future.

Joe:

Which only highlights the real discrimination which is against de facto couples. SSM advocates claim there are advantages in relation to the government by getting married. Why shouldn't the same advantages be available to de facto couples? What is the difference between people who marry and those who remain in a de facto relationship? If there are no advantages then why get married at all? So it is either discrimination or stupidity.

Voting NO is a way of trying to put an end to this discrimination because it stops a bad situation from getting worse.

Dear ttbn,

I am afraid you have never shown good cause to put me in such a loathed category. I have always striven to provide clear and rational reasoning for my claims. That you may have difficulty defending your beliefs in light of the challenges I present you with is not a reflection on myself.

It is with regret that I remind you, too, that you can indeed be rather abusive. I remind you of the time you referred to o sung wu as a "knob-headed idiot" (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7386#227967). Your last OLO incarnation seemed to go down in a fiery heap with a few posts deleted for abuse (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=19626).

The irony of what your current nom de plume stands for (which is hardly surprising given how your last OLO incarnation went out) has been mentioned more than once, too, I am sorry to say.