Australian Marriage Forum claims stark anti-same sex marriage ad is needed to jolt debate

Just disgraceful.

I don’t know what’s worse….that some creative took this on and designed the ad, or that it was successfully crowdfunded.

although – this did make me laugh. the fact that someone is so caught up in a relationship that has nothing to do with them, and impacts them in no meaningful way is hilarious.

I’d happily trade lives with the person who loses sleep at night over same sex marriage.

Absolute Rubbish in every line:

Is it equality for force some kids to miss out on their dad?
This is an fallacy. Allowing LGBT couples to get married does not force children to miss out on a dad. Most of the people they have quoted are being paid by a group called the National Organisation for Marriage to make these claims for them. Heather Barwick for instance did not loose her father because of her mother’s relationship with another woman – if you look at her story she distinctly states that her father abandon the family and didn’t want anything to do with her.
Is it tolerant to silence opponents with anti-discrimination laws?
Misleading. Nobody has tried to silence opponents. Opponents get challenged and refuted and are no longer the majority but they are not silenced. The issue raised by Mr. Croome was with the content of the booklet given out by the church – it was the fact that it was given out in schools to children. Freedom of speech gives you a right to speak and hold a view not to promote it in any forum. The material stating that LGBT people are inferior is likely to have a damaging affect on LGBT youth in those schools and could perpetuate bullying. That was the concern. The church is free to give it out in mass and on the Internet if they so wish. Also Mr. Croome suggested making a complaint to the commissioner – That only means that the commissioner will examine and investigate to see if any laws are broken it doesn’t necessarily mean that laws have been broken that proceedings will be launched. People are entitled to make complaints.
Is it loving to destroy primal love between mother and baby?
An asinine question. AMF does not explain how marriage equality will do such a thing. I’m presuming they are referring to surrogacy arrangements and adoption, both of which require the consent of all parties involved. Two points need to be observed
1. Marriage laws and regulation of adoption and surrogacy are two different things. Allowing same sex couples to marry does not instantly give them access to surrogacy and adoption – they already have access to surrogacy and adoption under most state laws. Furthermore heterosexual couples can also have children via adoption including from overseas and surrogacy and that doesn’t “destroy the bond between mother and baby.” So why single out LGBTs
2. There is no empirical evidence that children of LGBT couples are in any way harmed by being raised by gay parents. Most studies demonstrate that children with same sex parents are as well adjusted and happy as their peers with heterosexual parents.
Is it right to force homosexual education on all our children
Again misleading. Nothing is being forced onto children. Schools are merely recognising that LGBT people exist and should be accepted the same as straight people. LGBT children and their families have a right to be part of school communities too and should not have to be invisible or stigmatised – that just perpetuates homophobia and anti-gay stereotypes which leads to bully and depression.
In short the advert is misleading, asinine and frankly quite bigoted. AMF and it’s supporters do not own marriage – it’s a legal institution and should belong to us all. Nobody is preventing heterosexuals from marrying. What AMF really want is to protect heterosexual supremacy and exclusion of LGBTs.

Agree with you Julia. I also think the line that 1% are free to live as they choose – people’s sexual orientation and gender identity are an intrinsic part of who we are as people. Mr Van Gend and his ilk have no right to discriminate, exclude and deny access to social goods and institutions simply because someone else’s gender identity or sexual orientation is different from his own. The Commonwealth of Australia should afford all persons equal protection and dignity of the laws.

It’s just so so sad that this got made.

Homophobes have no place in Australian society.

It is NOT marriage unless JESUS says it is!!!!

What a bunch of [edited by Mumbrella] these people are. To intimate that you must have an ADAM and an EVE to bring up a child successfully is just ridiculous out of date thinking , almost as if they have been reading a 2,000 year old fairy story to control the masses and taking it as ‘gospel’.. oh…hang on….

Just disgusting. Fancy using and twisting the words of random people, in favour of this ridiculous campaign. Makes me sick. Isn’t that similar to passing off? Also, the people apparently raised by lesbian couples must be aware that straight kids also grow up with hardships. Honestly, people fear what they do not understand.

Julia, Absolute rubbish is right. What you have written is absolute rubbish particularly your bit about people not being silenced. Anytime anyone with a different opinion in this debate to those supporting gay marriage they are hounded down and their views, rightly or wrongly held, are NOT respected. Your comments are an exact example of this referring to people with a strongly held opinion that is opposite to your as bigoted. I really couldn’t give a rats as to whether the legislation goes through or not but I am disappointed that there is not a free and open debate without the resort to labelling like you have

Congrats on a balanced story reporting on an issue that is highly emotional on both sides of the fence. Very refreshing.

Just for the record, I’m in favour of marriage equality. The more open and balanced the debate is, the more light will be shone on the erroneous arguments of Australian Marriage Forum and their ilk will be revealed to be false and based in fear/fear mongering.

This is absolutely disgraceful. Dont get me started on the confused and unhappy kids of ‘natural parents’. Please – we are not living in the dark ages….or are we!

There is so much content in this ad that has been taken out of context! Quotes from people that actually support gay marriage, in particular – surely there’s a case of libel here…

I have posted here in the past on this topic but have been edited out. From the posts that got through, clearly understand where Mumbrella stands. I would just stop short of saying, tomorrow there would be a group that is in love with their pets and would run to parliament to legitimise their union.

Time to start a pro gay marriage crowd funding campaign to blow these arseholes out of the water…

+1 Des. What happened to a free open debate, even if you don’t agree ?

Des, shouting down fallacious arguments is not the same as silencing. You’re not being silenced – nobody is. You are free to express your opinion, that’s your right. What you don’t have is a right to is to make up your own facts. ‘Strongly’ held opinions are just as irrelevant as any other if they are based on bigotry, hatred and falsehoods.

Utter bollix.

Dear Des

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from challenge, cross-examination or freedom from being accused of prejudice where there is such a case for that accusation. The reason I referred to the advert as bigoted was because after going through each argument I concluded that the statements are either illogical or misleading and I suspect animosity towards LGBTs is a great motivation behind the opposition. The object of the exercise is to continue a culture of exclusion of LGBT people from various social institutions and goods including but not limited to marriage. The desire to push discourse of heterosexual supremacy within the school system marginalises LGBT youth for example. People are entitled to hold their view rightly or wrongly as you said but those opposing are entitled to question their motives. I’m normally very careful not to label people when discussing issues in public forums but occasionally I will call out something I see as being clearly motivated by animosity towards a disadvantaged minority group. This is actually the first time I have used the term bigoted in any marriage discussion.

It’s great to see people/organisations prepared to voice an opinion that so many others are not prepared to voice despite the inevitable chastisement from the so-called aggrieved. The ad itself acknowledges that all relationships matter.

Good on them for having the courage to say it. As for the “Oh, I don’t agree with you therefore I’ll scream discrimination” warriors, sorry but it’s not discrimination just because someone has an alternate view to you. But I respect your right to an opinion…

The domain for the “Australian Marriage Forum” was registered by the Family Council of Queensland.

The FCQ has made the news in the past; “Senator Santoro’s ‘charity’ not a charity” ( http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2007/s1870882.htm )

They are looking pretty desperate now. I wonder what these people will do once same sex marriage is legalised . . . maybe realise it isn’t that bad after all and get on with their lives.

What newspaper/s actually published this? I’m surprised it was editorially approved by ANY major newspaper. They are opening themselves up to be nailed by the public.

Julia didn’t say the creator of the advert was bigoted. She said the content of the ad conveyed a bigoted message. She didn’t label anyone anything. I say there has been a relatively open debate about the issue. the supposed hounding of the opposition occurs for two reasons

1. The arguments in favour of retaining the current definition don’t have a great deal of logic to them – This has been the finding of most US federal court decisions that have examined marriage bans under varying levels of scrutiny and found them inconsistent with the 14th amendments guarantee of Due process and Equal protection. in the Prop 8 case US District court Judge Walker directly identified excluding LGBTs from marriage was an attempt to legislate a private morality in the public sphere.

2. Exclusion of LGBT from marriage and some of the arguments used against them damage LGBTs. They are being told things like your marriage is less worthy of recognition to mine, that your a threat to children or that your sexuality and gender orientation is viewed as wrong by my particular religion and hence you should be stigmatised and labeled as evil or bad. These sorts of statement harms the mental wellbeing of LGBTs and can lead to suicide and depression. Furthermore as identified by the Human Rights Commissions SOGII report exclusion from marriage reinforces the message that LGBTs are inferior to straight and Cis people and their relationships and expression are wrong.

For these reasons people who support rights of LGBTs tend to be strong in reply to opponents. And in any case I’ve heard opponents of marriage equality refer to LGBTs as “militant,” and the “PC brigade” and a lot of other hurtful and rather nasty names so so it tends to go both ways.

The ad itself acknowledges that all relationships matter – Yes but then it goes onto suggest that any relationship that isn’t a man and a woman is inferior and worthy of being excluded from a government provided institution – that’s the issue people have.

It’s not the opinion that people say is discrimination – it’s the fact that the law excludes LGBTs from a social good and in doing so perpetuates stereotypes and negative messages about LGBTs. That has been the finding of most courts in Nations that have equal protection requirements in their national constitutions such as Canada and the USA.

People are entitled to hold an opinion – The constitution implies the right to freedom of political communication. But Citizens should have the right to the equal protection of their nation’s laws.

I would just stop short of saying, tomorrow there would be a group that is in love with their pets and would run to parliament to legitimise their union.

With respect George this isn’t reasonable – Animals are not legal persons and they would not have capacity to marry under the Law – Nor do they capacity to sign a contract, obtain a drivers license, be granted power of attorney, own property, hold an office of trust under the commonwealth or be elected to parliament. All allowing for Marriage equality does is change a few words in the marriage act but at it’s core marriage remains the same – a legal contract between two persons of full legal capacity entering will fully informed consent. Human – animal marriages would not qualify for this as an animal cannot give consent – it would be a unilateral contract which is not possible in contract or marriage law.

But relationships can be marriage in Britain, New Zealand, Ireland, Sweden, Spain, South Africa, Netherlands, Portugal, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Iceland.

Although I agree that not all relationships are marriage in Australia, Russia, Saudi Arabia and IS controlled territory.

Find. Another. Word.

Keep. Up. The. Bigotry.

It’s. Not. Your. Business. Get. A. Life.

Finally – an alternative to the tyrannical view forced upon us by SSM advocates! Thank God we live in a democracy, where freedom of speech gives everyone a right to have a say.

Well done AMF on an excellent ad and for standing up for truth and what is right.

Sad to see so many posts from people who would deny equality to all. Mourning the time when advertising was populated by decent, intelligent and balanced people.

Good job AMF. The argument for same-sex marriage is riddled with inconsistencies and if SSM is legalised it will have a disastrous impact upon society. I also find it highly ironic that the same people who vehemently defend SSM argue that those of us who don’t support gay marriage are ‘intolerant’, and yet SSM proponents refuse to even allow their opponents to voice their opinions or share a civilised debate. Why can’t SSM proponents be tolerant of the beliefs of their opponents?

bigotry
ˈbɪɡətri/

noun: bigotry; plural noun: bigotries
intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.

help yourself folks, we’ve got plenty of it to go around.

neither love,or intelligence are decided by ones sexual preference.

The ad does raise a good point about children in this whole debate. SSM will create a lot of demand for surrogacy too which is a terrible exploitation of women.

@Defend Real Marriage – No-one is denying you your opinion. No-one will force you to marry someone of the same sex, nor deny you the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. The only intolerance is from those who want to interfere in other people’s lives when it has nothing to do with them.

There is nothing inconsistent – we just want people to be able to marry the person they want. The opposing side of the debate is trying to maintain an inconsistent and discriminatory law.

Why do I not find it surprising that people who reference a 2000 year old book are also still using QR codes.

Well done AMF on an excellent ad and for standing up for truth and what is right

This is reason that opponents cop the flack that they do. I don’t mean to offend you but this is not an argument it’s a statement of hyperbole. There is nothing “true” about anything in the ad and few moments on google will take apart most of the arguments AMF have put up. Julia refutes them well. Similar there is nothing inherently “right” about their position – that just comes across as an attack on LGBT people and there relationships. If opponents do not wish to wear the label bigot then they need to have an actual argument and not just be dismissive of LGBT people as if they, their relationships, forms of expression and families are just “wrong” because they are not the same as AMF’s or yours. LGBT people find this dehumanising, unfair and cruel and hence person who run lines like that are deemed bigots.

Defend Real Marriage – there is no such thing as “real” marriage. Marriage has had a variety of meanings and purposes throughout human history and at the end of the day is whatever the government legislates it to be. This statement demonstrates an indifference to LGBT people and their relationships and an almost childish view of “my relationship is better than yours because I say so view.” That’s why opponents are dismissed as intolerant. The opponent side as every right to air it’s views – it is doing so in the advert. All proponents of Marriage equality have done is critique it and question/call out the motives behind it.

SSM will create a lot of demand for surrogacy too which is a terrible exploitation of women – I don’t think it will create any more demand for surrogacy than there all ready is. Surrogacy is used by heterosexual couples who want children more than it is used by same sex couples. Whether it is an exploitation is debatable – In Australia it’s usually restricted to altruistic surrogacy and it requires fully informed consent of either of the parties. Exploitation is probably more common in 3rd world countries. There are ethical issues around the practice of surrogacy but they don’t have any bearing on the question of marriage equality. It’s a separate issue and the two should not be conflated.

And the The Australian ran this inaccurate piece of hate speech???

When nearly half of all marriages end in divorce I’m not sure why the bigots want to hang onto the ‘sanctity of marriage’. If anything, letting more people marry may actually improve that stat!

I think this ad is necessary in a climate where dissent from the pro-homosexual marriage advocates is not tolerated. Good on Australian Marriage Forum.

@blutack Do you find it surprising that people generally have had sex physically more or less the same way since time? Want to introduce QR codes there as well?

Last time I checked we lived in a democracy. We can debate things, place arguments out there, and have our own beliefs. There’s nothing abhorrent about one side of a debate taking out a newspaper ad. As for me, yep I happen to believe in something other people here want to rubbish as a fairy tale and an old book (but there’s a few of us out there and have been for 2000 years). I think the thing here is to actually love and respect each other in the debate and overall think of the needs of others before our own ‘rights’ ie. Kids of the future (And let’s get real on what human rights are when we look at some of the bigger issues in other countries are right now). Happy for people to disagree – that’s life!

(And somehow I don’t think you’re gonna be able to solve this all on a Mumbrella forum keyboard warriors)

Disgusted that this hate-mongering ad was able to be printed. Imagine a bunch of quotes against aboriginal parenting! Gay people want and should have equality.

@ sensible man, just changing a few words in the marriage contract? Have you thought about its implications on surrogacy, paternity etc? Comfortable with the idea that you were fathered by someone who jerked off to buy weed ?

The truth hurts. Those who want to redefine marriage and who support homosexual marriage seem incapable of engaging their brains and critically thinking through the issues. Instead they resort to name calling.

Julia you wrote, that allowing LGBT couples to get married does not force children to miss out on a dad. However I ask you, is there anything stooping you acknowledging that both partners in a homosexual (gay) relationship are of the same sex? Your example of Heather Barwick’s story indicates it started with a father, in a female-same-sex scenario the force starts when the father is kept out of the equation. I note also that the ad prompts one to think how a male-same-sex scenario forcibly separates the mother from the child. You also wrote, most of the people they have quoted are being paid by a group called the National Organisation for Marriage to make these claims for them. Surely that is your opinion. From what I read, the majority of quotes used were said long before the ad was aired.

I think it is wonderful to see this ad posted in the MSM that seems to largely be always supportive of the SSM agenda, to the exclusion of everyone else. We have really only been hearing ad nauseum about discrimination, equal love, rights of adults etc- most probably so we NEVER hear about the more long term issues that this raises.
I would be so proud if Australia was the first western nation to make the choice to put this to rest once and for all and show the rest of the western world how to strengthen a society through strengthening it’s man-woman marriages rather than trying to destroy it.

How long is too long a response for an issue of this size?

@Peter, great to see someone willing to stand up and be counted – there’s an irony in people slagging off something you (and I, too) hold dear, while asserting the need for respect to something important to them. Of course, this doesn’t mean I think my belief system gives me a right to dictate what other people do (hey, I believe God gave free will, so why would I try and take it away?)

However, we run into a fundamental issue here – the law already provides protection for same sex couples. Twenty years ago, heterosexual de facto couples told the government to step out of their relationship by requiring marriage that ‘was just a piece of paper’. They were afforded equivalent protections as married couples, which were then extended to homosexual de facto couples. But now, that ‘piece of paper’ has become all-important to gay couples who require it to legitimise their choice to live a monogamous lifestyle together. Why?

We then face the challenge of changing the definition of a word. This isn’t about equality which, as noted, already exists (as I honestly believe it should). However, if I suddenly wanted to call myself Indigenous, most people would object. Why? Because it is a word loaded with a cultural meaning and context tracing back through the ages. I was born here, have an affinity for the land, etc etc, but I can’t appropriate a word to try and equate myself with another people group in a desire for “equality”. The fact I’m not Indigenous doesn’t make me better or worse; just different.

To me, the point of the SSM movement pursuing the ‘marriage’ word is to seek official validation, and consequently to remove the right to hold an opposing opinion.

I can tell you that my opinion is not up for grabs. Nor is it ignorant, bigoted, or fearful. If the point is for the homosexual community to feel validated, I am more than happy to say: you are equals. You matter. Your rights are important. You’ve been judged, cast aside, and treated horribly as a people group, and you have a right to be upset about it. Some of this by the church, too – which isn’t acceptable.

But we will have a fundamental difference of opinion if you ask me to support homosexuality. It isn’t how this behaviour effects me (which, as you guessed, it doesn’t) it’s concern for those involved that I worry about. If you’ve ever worried about the long-term health effects for a friend or family member that smokes – or worried there was deeper stuff driving the need – then you probably understand this sentiment. Whether or not you think my concern is well-founded is another thing… but it’d change the way you see my ‘opposition’ if you realised that it isn’t driven out of hatred but love and a desire for the best for everyone involved.

Wow, great ad. Thank you. I have been wondering about many of these issues which to date have been scarce in the debate. Great points made and not a moment too soon.
The level of debate until now has been puerile and shallow.

@ Mark. With respect mark your comment is as much name calling as anyone else’s. The arguments are there and have been since the US district court overturned propoisition 8. I already responded to most of what the ad raises. Similary George’s comment also doesn’t seem to consider the fact that surrogacy and IVF already exist and many children have been concieved this way the vast majority of them raised by heterosexual couples. In any case clinics screen there donors and there are privacy protection

@ kevin – in AMF had one decent argument people probably wouldn’t be as hostile. But everything they have said here was shot down during at the Proposotion 8 trial. It wasn’t convincing then and it’s not convincing now. Supporters of change have a very strong case.

@mark pray for us

Not much room for marriage at all if our planet is uninhabitable. Do something useful with your time…

To have AMF supporters here whining about free speech and democracy is disgusting and hypocritical. You are the ones discriminating against the LGBT community and deserve the scorn and disdain that you are getting.

This isn’t about children – gay couples can already have children. Nor is it about legal rights – as some have pointed out, same sex couples can already have more or less the same rights.

It’s about the symbolism of marriage. Clearly this is important to you, otherwise you wouldn’t be here. So why shouldn’t it be important to everyone? Why do you feel you need to impose your beliefs on other people when it has nothing to do with you and will not affect your life or marriage in any way?

If you don’t agree with marriage equality that’s fine. But don’t let your bigotry stand in the way of others.

The comments I read here are testimony to how intolerant the Gay supporters are! Finally we have some public support for not redefining marriage because of 1% of the population.

Actually @proudfather it’s 70%+ of the population who support marriage equality. By far the majority.

And pointing out that the anti-marriage equality arguments are flawed and bigoted is not intolerance. Free speech goes both ways. If you want to put your terrible views out there, you should expect 70%+ of the population to debate you on it as is their right.

@pabs. All of the issues that the ad has addressed have been settled by the US federal courts in cases concerning state marriage bans. None of them were found to produce even a rational basis for denying LGBT people the right to get married. Have a look at the Walker J’s decision in Perry and you’ll see they just don’t hold water. You also need to examine the motives and backgrounds of some of the poeple they have quoted particulary in relation to parenting.

@andrew. The reason defacto status is not good enough is because the law is still giving a special status to heterosexual couples that excludes LGBTI citizens. That is effectively state sanctioned discrimination. The argument about domestic partnerships being adequate was rejected in the proposition 8 case becasue although it provides the same benefits it still disavantages LGBTI people without a compelling reason for doing so.

When considering the debate the average Heteorsexual or Cis person should ask themselves this – If I wasn’t able to marry the person I choose to marry and if I was subject to abuse or stigamitised for seeking intimacy with my partner, or denied certain services because my relationship supposedly offended a theological view of a service provider would I like it. You will not understand another man until you have walked a mile in his shoes.

Anyone wanting to bring children’s issues into this should be aware of 2 things. 1) Marriage does not operate as a license to have children and 2) the law does not generally (in Australia at least) restrict people’s reproductive freedom. In effect it is not explained how restricting the marriage to a man and a woman will is appropriately adapted to protecting or advancing any right of children to know their biological parents (if indeed they have that right). For instance there is no law that prevents the captain of the high school football team getting the lead cheerleader pregnant while intoxicated, which would arguably not give children the best start in life. Certainly there are arguments that marriages do provide stability but this is in no way furthered or advanced by the gender restriction. Similarly marriage does not act as a safeguard against any form of parental child abuse.

There are three global flags in the world:
1-The pirate flag: in the old day, the sea bandit used black flag symbolizes the white skull laid at middle two crossing bones. This flag being identity into the Ocean.
2-The communist flag: it appeared since Lenin took over Russia and set up the communist regime, the Red flag to be displayed the yellow hammer and sickle. From so called the October 1917 Revolution, the communist wave spread worldwide, the consequence is more than 100 million people killed, billion lost freedom and enslaved.
3-Nowadays the Rainbow flag: the same sex marriage, a minor population in society, but they are backed by the left, fallen politicians and the lost support party, they spread the individual issue to the world, and the same sex marriage seems control the world, it is the biggest issue, but disaster for the existence of people. The rainbow flag with the same sex marriage imposes their personal choice to public and nation. The same sex marriage is the individual choice, not God will, therefore it raises more problem to society, nation. The same sex marriage threatens the population and against the traditional marriage.
(Hoa Minh Truong, author of 4 books published in New York).

If you do your background research (names, IP addresses etc.) it will become apparent that many of the comments in favour of this advertisement and against marriage equality come from church affiliated individuals and religious organisations. Lets hope then that the bits of the Bible that refer to love, understanding, equality and the like which these people choose to ignore in favour of their bigoted flat earth interpretations don’t send them to hell instead of the heaven they crave. I’ll be there in hell you see you good folks and I have volunteered for pitchfork duty. Looking forward to meeting you. And I’m very conscientious.

Pity same-sex “marriage” advocates are so hypocritical.
They bang on and on about tolerance, bigotry, name-calling, etc. – it seems they think that if they carry on it about it loud enough, and often enough, we’ll some how go away.
In fact, being loud and persistent (not to mention attempting to drown out logic with emotion) is in a nut-shell brain-washing, and so many are being blind-sided and sucked-in, since they are being starved of another perspective.

Thank you AMF – you might not have provided a “perfect” piece, but it’s certainly a lot more balanced than the emotive clap-trap put out by those who seek to undermine marriage, under the guise of “equality”.

It’s also interesting to see the same-sex “marriage” lobby trying to hijack, twist and distort so many things, eg. with the word equality (as though those who oppose them in this matter are “anti-equality”), the term “homophobia” (which in reality means fear of man, since words ending with “phobia” are Latin terms that refer to a certain fear [phobia = fear in Latin, and homo simply refers to “man” in Latin]), and even the rainbow – this is NOT the property of LGBT – it is a sign given to us by God, after he wiped out the earth for it’s persistent wickedness.
One such wickedness, which is clearly abhorrent to God is homosexuality. Again, the homosexual lobby will try to twist and distort Scripture, and come up with all sorts of wild (and down-right weird) interpretations so as to be able to appease themselves, and somehow “justify” their position, but at the end of the day, it simply don’t wash…
These are just some examples of such distortion, and all the while many on that side hiss at those who have an alternative view, and then accuse them of somehow being vitriolic and intolerant…?! Really???

Loud, long and emotive arguments as utilised by the same-sex “marriage” lobby may have gone some way to brain-washing a good number of people… but, no, they would call that an “education and awareness campaign”…

Rather than trying to rubbish those who have an alternative view, how about all you who support the LGBT lobby and/or same-sex “marriage”, show the same kind of respect you persistently (and wrongly) be-moan that you are deprived of?

Further, I find it funny how many members of this side wish to flip-flop between being a minority group, and then making up the “majority” – “70%+” of polls… albeit with doctored questions, and with a target audience…

I hold firm to the traditional view of marriage, and oppose any attempt at same-sex “marriage” – this is still compatible with my capacity to love and respect all, which I do (and take offence to any notion that I “hate” those who oppose me, on this matter or any other, or that “any” part of what I have written is in any way “hateful”).

RESPECTFULLY yours…

@Mick I’d say calling homosexual people wicked and abhorrent is pretty hateful. Your willingness to discriminate certainly is too.

Why do you insist on everyone following your religion? You and your church can do what you want but you have no right to impose this on everyone else in society. Isn’t democracy and freedom about allowing people to do what they want to do, as long as it doesn’t affect others? Why does it threaten you so much?

Congratulations on writing an article that contained no bias. It’s a shame that it is ruined by so many ignorant comments.

I have returned to tell all who support bigotry, you are on the wrong side of humanity.
And while I’m at it. Stop wearing the damn crosses, do you think I really need to be reminded of that day.

Sad that this ad was published and that many we will be on the wrong side of history.

There was a time when inter-racial marriage wasn’t legal either…

Definitions of words & their meaning change all the time. Australia as a progressive 21st century nation should be moving ahead with Marriage Equality.
(hint it’s in the name equality)

If you don’t like gay people because it makes you feel icky, that is your right, what isn’t your right is to determine that the can’t marry a person that they love, that is inequality.

as for reading an old book and accepting it as fact, go back and read an encyclopaedia from 1973 and see how much of it is relevant, a collection of stories translated multiple times from different languages, good luck

Just choose another name. Marriage is taken. Get over it and move on. It’s the small noisy minority bullying anyone with a different view.

They use PC as a weapon to put down any views they don’t agree with. PS check out the video “What ‘gay marriage’ did to Massachusetts — Update!” see the future.

I was going to leave Foxtel (too many adverts) now I’m staying to support them.

The whole trend towards bashing Christianity strikes me as incredibly ironic. It’s like the spoiled teenager who sits in a comfortable house using the iPhone his parents bought him, on the wifi network they pay for, to whinge about his parents on Facebook.

The Judeo-Christian values you hate so much are the very same ones that created a society where you have the freedom to express that hatred.

I consider myself intelligent, fair, articulate, and Christian. As has been observed above, the ‘brainwashing’ people like me are often accused of is being employed heavily by SSM advocates, and far less so by Christians.

It appears we all push our own (partial) views no matter what. It is indeed very hard to be objective. Well as I am a laborer, & have not really been to church since Sunday school times. I (we) insisted on a Church wedding. Reasons, My instinct, and beliefs are that an all powerful god created the heavens & the earth. Created ME ! I wanted the blessing upon my marriage & the children that I had already imagined with my wife. A combination of us both. My religious belief may be classed on the eccentric side of things, But as we have all stated, this is my freedom of choice, YES ?
I have noticed not many, if any, contributors on the SSM side have mentioned there life desire to please God.
Now most of my friends are atheist, evolutionist & detest the Hypocrisy of the church & religion. Heterosexuals & gays of old had blatantly refused …marriage , especially by the Church. I need it explained to me …how this campaign improves the situation for the new gay movement …. I can see how it will effect the old (6000 yrs) ways.
Feel free to Berate, the uneducated unemployed, sadly divorced god fearing man. But the world itself is still a Beautiful place hey.

Just look at the outrage, the name calling, the indignation and the bridling.

One of the differences between horses and humans, is the fact that having lead us to water, only the horses seem to know that it is still optional to drink.

Racist, racism, homophobia, misogynist, and even xenophobe, were words most uncommon in everyday speech forty years ago.

In the good old Orwellian tradition of “Four legs good – Two legs bad,” many have come to understand and to recognise the appropriate opportunity for the employment of such words, but few have the discernment to hold back and consider the facts before expressing them.

It is not “homophobia” to disagree with, or to be unsure about same sex marriage.
It is not “misogyny” to disagree with a woman or her point of view, or even to be at odds with the concept of equal pay.

Name calling can also be a form of ignorance and bigotry in itself.

Long Live Free Speech! All adults are free to enter into adult romantic relationships as they sit fit (assuming consent). Gender complementarity is essential to marriage. This understanding of marriage has endured through all of human history. The name calling against those holding a belief that 99.99% of all humanity has believed is childish. Grow up and enter the debate like adults please.

Throughout human history there have been many different definitions of marriage. The bible lists several.

Even if your premise was correct, why should the definition of marriage not evolve?

Honestly, let the politicians get on with their jobs!

The existing laws are simply DISCRIMINATION.

We live in a society where it is illegal to discriminate and therefore the law must be changed.

EQUAL MARRIAGE NOW!!

There is no discrimination. All couples have the same rights whether married, de facto or same sex. Only one country has redefined marriage via people’s vote. Ireland. Others via extremist minority lobby group manipulating media and politicians and even judges. Stop trying to shout opponents down with false accusations lies and bigotry. How dare anyone hold an opposing view! Try putting a decent argument together.

I wonder if you asked Muslims and big religions what they think about gay marriage. It’s laughable because Muslims still stone gay people to death! They’re more racist and stereotyped then anyone on this planet. Plus nothing will change overnight. Marriage/No marriage…who cares!

Jesus is the only way to a happy marriage no matter what other people think

neither do [edited under Mumbrella’s comment policy]!!!