@ Quoting Lady Gaga #146. You know peodophiles say the same thing about their sexual orientation, when are we going to legalise them and would you support that too. Say no to gays.

Dave #143: people are born this way. I've got a pretty good memory, and I don't remember ever saying to myself, "Right, it's time for me to choose my sexual orientation. I pick gay."

As for the difference between civil unions and marriage, a large part of it is tied up in the fact that couples in civil unions (even your straight brethren) can't adopt children. Secondly, many places around the world don't recognise civil unions at all, and automatic spousal rights in the event of death don't apply.

As far as I'm concerned, children have the right to a loving, stable, home with a parent or parents who love them and will fight to the death to keep them safe. Widening the circle of those who are allowed to adopt can do nothing but promote this. End of story.

M #142: To paraphrase your response:

"I don't know"

It's not up to us to prove your 'theory', that's your job.

Benjamin Easton #140 said: "Your reply has missed what I have said - because I give authority to God."

There's you're problem; you've given authority to a mute father figure whom most people consider imaginary.

Perhaps you could ask God to enter this debate, Benjamin, and clear things up for us?

What does this bill offer that differs from a civil union?

If you wanted to get married you wouldn't have become gay in teh first place. To much PC crap in the country. Just like two men or two women can't have a child together, its not like global warming, you can't fight nature... but then again we let them adopt a kid, their rights to have a kid seemingly outway the interests of the child, but we can't hurt there feelings now can we

@#Rex130, You sound like your a smart enough person to do your own research and come up with your own conclusions, so i’ll leave it up to you to figure it out.

Where did he throw the laws away? Exactly? Which line says "i will now break all laws ever" All the values worth taking from the bible can be taught without the bible. 90% of the laws we have now aren't from the outmoded manual of fables. Some stuff we may have taken from the bible we ignore utterly or have removed because they're really really really bad. Your paragraph uses many words and fails to actually say anything relevant. I really hope you're trolling.

@Random. Yes Random that is me. I was the one who said that the road width was to be constructed Council's own minimum standard for urban public transport at 3.5 meters. Where Venessa Green was killed and Tom Brown run over by his own company's bus is 3 meters wide. In Manners Mall it is 3.25 meters wide. I am saying that people like Rex don't care. I was saying other things were corrupted as well, that somehow have been pushed under the carpet and excused.

In this matter I am saying that a child has a legally entrenched God given right of family association so to be born to mum and dad, but behaviours that have eroded the comprehension and discipline of God are now trying to capture the very institution of the child's protection.

Your reply has missed what I have said - because I give authority to God. I fight back at those who abuse the responsibility of elected or public authority.

@ Benjamin Easton #138

"There is openly little to nothing that would or could control your being."

Thankfully an ever increasing number of us no longer have fragile minds and can handle this burden. We can control ourselves and are masters of our own destiny. I'm not surprised you feel you aren't in control of yourself, you've shown an extreme lack of control with your actions in public, assuming you are the notorious Benjamin Easton that likes taking to the street with a sledgehammer.

RexN - so the law is of little importance to you - even though ignorance of the law is no excuse? This is why we have penalties in law. So those who are ignorant of its propriety can be brought into line with how society operates. In 1688 the English Bill of Rights separated the Church from its then controlling and I presume abusive power - it controlled and limited against corruption. Now the Government that ought not be impeached is exercising with the same one sided behaviour that then required revolutionary discipline. Your words are an accurate exercise of such behaviour where you dismiss the notion of an authority greater than mankind in unashamed abandon. There is openly little to nothing that would or could control your being. It is frightening that you abandon existing law with the same lack of consequence as you do the church.