“Not that I have any for you”
“No regards”
“I don’t have any respect”
“Your vile judgement”

Classic stuff. This is the side that says they are the good guys and ‘on the right side of history’. Are you going include this kind of ‘love’ in the upbringing of the child you mentioned? Or in further social developments in our country? “Love anyone who thinks the same way as you and supports you. Everyone else, do as you please.”

I’ll give you an example of why this idea of loving only your friends is not very good. I’m a teacher and have a bully in my class. He threatened to assault a female classmate three times, has teased and insulted her, and broke her stuff. This is bullying as defined on the government’s no bullying website. Yet his classmates support him and console him anyway. Why? Because he’s their friend, and the girl isn’t. Am I a bigot for calling them out on this? They have learned to oppose bullying by ‘taking a stand together’ for years, and when it came to the crunch, chose to support the bully.

This idea of loving your enemy is from our country’s Christian foundation. And it’s a great idea. But even the word ‘love’ has been redefined by our friend in the SSM movement. The kids in my class think it means ‘making people happy all the time no matter what.’ Hedonism is the thing. Nothing about sacrifice or hard work or wisdom.

The ‘auntie’ you mentioned is the boy’s mother. Why tell lies? Give her her correct name. Why twist language? That’s his mum, and there’s a good chance that he will wish he was more a part of his life at some time, as his peers whose mothers look after them. A child only gets one mum. A mother is precious.

So, in one comment we have a lie, tribalism, and conditional love. As you can see, SSM does affect me because it is part of the foundational changes that are happening to our country that are not good, are all made up by atheist-nihilist-neo-Marxist theorists whose objective is to dismantle and destroy the old, and whose progress ought to be curtailed at this plebiscite.

Andy, you’ve been played by the guys who want to change Western society. You are their servant now. You will even hate for them, it seems, from your comment. They stirred you up and you are doing exactly what they want. You are their helper. Me, a bigot? Heck, why not, You think a mother is an auntie, and you want to redefine the word ‘marriage’ too. Why not redefine another word while you’re at it?

God bless you and your child.

Möwe, with all due respect, not that I have any for you, to be honest, you are right, I do think you’re a bigot. Anyone reading would also think the same.

Luckily I don’t need your validation of our family to get by.

Our child will not grow up wondering where his mum is, he has two loving dads and a very special auntie who carried him.

If you have that view, you may as well say that any family with a single parent will have the same problem, with the child always thinking where his other parent is.

Luckily for our family, we’re all happy enough without your vile judgement.

Regards *

*actually, no regards; I don’t have any respect for those who wish to push their view onto the lives of others when it has no bearing on their own lives whatsoever.

VOTE YES!

“Theses (sic) children, on average, do slightly better than other children, when compared academically.”

Dubious. But see how the materialist argument is being used here. It’s all about what you have and what you own. Whoever dies with he most toys wins. Some worldview. Get better results in school? Who gives a stuff, if you’re the world’s smartest jerk?

Meanwhile, the poor kid raised by a same-sex couple has to grow up thinking ‘where’s my mum?’, and simultaneously doing everything to please his two dads and go along with the illusion that it’s all normal.

Moreover, a same-sex couple can’t have a child without becoming a threesome with a member of the opposite sex. Pretending that a same-sex couple can have its own child is just a lie. Is the ‘yes’ side the side of the liars? If so, why would I vote for them?

You have been played expertly by the same-sex marriage activists. You aren’t going to change your mind. You aren’t even going to consider any of what I say, because in your mind I’m a bigot. They made you think that way. It only took a few decades of effort. They have played you like an accordion, and getting a nice tune out of you.

Vote No!

No, a ‘No’ vote would not do what you said. If evidence from the Left’s reaction to Trump and Brexit is an indication (it is), then a No vote will be followed by epic whining. They will not shut up about it. Only now they’ll have ‘proof’ that ‘the majority of Australians are homophobes’ or whatever. They’ll probaby put on double the cops at the next Mardi Gras and not shut up about ‘how sad it is that this is thought to be needed’. These guys love talking about being victims so much they will probably actually like a ‘No’ vote!

Gay marriage is a bad idea. It was concocted by creepy nihilist-atheist neo-Marxist theorists in universities with big plans for the West, whom you and most proponents of SSM know next to nothing about. Those plans are well underway in all of the West, and are not going to stop if there is a ‘yes’ vote. This is why you don’t see much call for gay marriage outside the West. SSM’s main aim is to further remove the moral authority of the church. Its most egregious immediate effect will be that surrogacy will increase in order to continue the illusion that a gay couple is ‘equal’ to a man-woman couple.

Vote ‘No’ for all the reasons given in the article, and also because this is about the only time they are ever going to let us ordinary people have our say on social matters. Use it to put the brakes on and slow down all this change! Let’s pause and take a breath, and think about it.

For every other, non-SSM social matter, they (i.e. those bringing about the changes — academics, politicians, activists etc.) will keep on doing what they have been doing. If you are really worried, you can rest assured that gay people will continue to do what they are doing right now.

You mentioned rights. Well, does a ‘married’ gay couple have a ‘right’ to take a child away from its mother in order to ‘be a real family’? Why give the gay couple a right only to take the right to his own mother away from the child? Sounds like the kid gets a raw deal. So don’t talk to me about ‘rights’. The child’s ‘right’ to his own mother at least comes from the natural reality that he has a mother. Where does a gay couple’s ‘right’ to marry come from? University theorists, is the answer to that one.

As for your comment about spending $120 million and it being a ‘waste’. I am concerned about the ABC eating up a billion a year to produce bias and second-rate product. I’m concerned about a national debt creeping up toward a trillion due to far too much government spending. There’s plenty of waste which the Left never mentions because they benefit from it. ‘Left’ means ‘more government’, after all.