Sorry Izzy, but respect and support go hand in hand

I am new to Christianity, and I too love and respect all people. I too will not and cannot support gay marriage. Josh you talk of Love and Respect like you understand these principles. First read the Bible and gain a relationship with the living God who gave you breath. Religion is man made, Relationship with God is all that matters. When you find out what Love is, not what you think it is, then repost and share. God Bless and keep you.

This is worse than a politicising of a sporting form It is an editor of the site using his position and power to attack a man of great principle whom he knows is unable to defend himself in this forum. josh is exhibiting the bullying behaviour for which the Yes camp is being criticised Whether you agree with Israel or not, and I am an atheist, we should all defend his right to free speech

".....and I oppose polygamist marriages ...." So that's all such marriages - you don't support heterosexual polygamist marriage but opposed same sex ones or interracial ones etc. There's a distinction.

RO, I think you may have missed the point of poyns post. Some people consider themselves to be "polyamorous", their desire to maintain intimate relations with more than one person constitutes their sexuality, just like homosexuality. In accordance with the "marriage is a human right" argument which is being perpetuated by many SSM advocates, we are discriminating against polyamorous people by denying them the right to marry more than one person. That is why I don't like defining marriage as a human right, I think it is primarily a socially defined relationship which is constituted as much for the common good as it is for the happiness of individuals. As it is I think granting same sex couples is in the interest of the common good, they have families whether they can get married or not and I think that marriage can only strengthen their relationships and normalise life for their children. But I do think that we as a society absolutely have the right to define what marriage is and I oppose polygamist marriages because I do not think they would contribute to a respectful and cohesive society. In societies where they operate they commoditise women and leave a lot of angry unmarried men who dip out because of their economic or social status. It is a recipe for discord and violence. Does that view trample on the rights of individuals to be in a polygamous marriage and is it discriminatory against polyamorous people? Absolutely, but I think it is necessarily so. Doesn't mean that I hate or disrespect them though. The same goes for most people who oppose SSM, they do so on common good grounds and it is in no way disrespectful for them to do so. What the SSM lobby should be doing is to engage them on an intellectual level and discuss why SSM is good for us as a society, rather than attacking them personally, it is more likely to be effective.

I'm thoroughly sick of regions bullying people who don't believe in their superstitious texts for centuries!!!

As I said, "ultimately I now understand what your over riding opinions were." My comment was in response to what I understood your paragraph to say. I still feel I read it right, but can see how it reads differently when I use your further explanation as a foot note. Btw. Just because no-one else commented changes nothing. There's just as much chance people were in agreement with me.

@ London Waratah "many of those procreate without the ability to conceive." Er....ummmm.....??

Great comment

My point still stands if the ARU isn't happy they can always rip up Folau's contract. Would that make you happy.

Folau is speaking out against his employer and he could take the extra step into oblivion.

Yep the LNP in action again like the republican vote and Benedict Arnold Malcolm Trumbull at the helm again with his old master Howard surfacing - it's a set up - I'm betting on a N o vote winning this rubbish poll although it would be a disgrace - but that's how this simple country goes -anyone know if where the best odds on this joke of a vote are???

It's a dumb ass Logies style Poll because the Government doesn't have the balls to do its job and what we pay them to do. Religion and state should not mix. Religion should not tell others how to live their lives . Folou should maybe look at some Pacific Island history about their colonisation and the role of the church - a disgrace!

Good point though the common theme of them all is they are based on exclusion, separatism. Its not that Communists, or White supremists etc are athiests, its because others are not communists or white supremists. Like religion, it is the very commonality that binds them, and often the hatred of others who dont share that commonality, that cause wars. Humans that group together for a common cause often make the mistake of believing they are elitist. Religion in the past was one of those, and still is today within the extremis(t examples. Nationalism is another. Some hat!e 'America' purely because of what it represents, especially with Trump whistling its greatness more than ever. Listen to Lennons Imagine. Living together as one. No countries, no religions etc A pipe dream? You betcha.

True... Similar to other tweets by a well known figure. Not a lot if thought goes into those either but their impact seems to divide millions.

Agree, yours is another. Cant have your cake and eat it too. Cant respect and condemn with the same thought or action.

Disagree completely. This is the hiding behind an obviously outdated law to uphold an equally outdated religious belief. Do we need to be reminded how over the centuries how many so called biblical 'laws' have been removed from legal statutes the world over. This is merely one of the remaining ones. I see Peter Fitsimmons has chimed in on it. Clearly Folau has failed to, or worse chosen not to, recognise the wider issues with his comments and when one holds views at that level if simplicity it smacks of those similar to those infringing in other civil rights. Once again, hes entitled to his opinion, but he is mot being respectful to those affected by the vote.

Ha ha, good luck with that, oh righteous one. Geez

Tyrone, By doing something illegal, you relinquish the rights to 'equal rights' in our society...soz buddy...unless you're living in a different society to traditional 'Western Society'? I'm a bit surprised by the backlash to this article and possibly shines a light on those above. It appears you're all quite happy to keep gay couples effectively 'outside society'. Ask yourselves Why? Peter Fitz in SMH makes a brilliant point about Israel's stance in that much of the population procreate outside of marriage as is...many of those procreate without the ability to conceive. RE: politicising this site? This 'ain't politics kids. Throughout history, there has been a consistent percentage of gay people. in every population (23% in USA according to one Wiki article)....they generally have not procreated as a rule so therefore are a naturally-occurring variant to the majority within a human population, for as long as records have been kept. Therefore, logic would have it (sorry to bring that concept into this discussion) that they are a natural variant within the natural human species. They are natural. Therefore, carrying on with that old 'logic thingy', their occurrence is akin to blue eyes v brown eyes variations in being a pre-determined genetic facet of our species and deserve to be accepted within our population/society as such. Come on 'boys and girls'....this discussion might expand the minds.

I think the key point there might be "some"

As a special visa it saves me casting an irrelevant vote but I tend to agree... At the moment this is just political grandstanding; politicians and public figure clamouring to add value to their brand "look at me, I'm progressive and don't hate people, aren't I great". The survey is non binding and implications aren't being discussed thoroughly without going back to the look at me line from above. I don't have a problem with a formal legal commitment being made between homosexuals but the legal implications of defining it as marriage are potentially broad.