And as proof, we have crazy emperor nero, and polygamy (which still involves a man and a woman)

Shocking that someone is getting paid to write such piffle.

____ wrote on Nov 1^st, 2013 at 11:18am:


And your using the deviate incestuous homosexual Emperor Nero as your shining link???
The man was one very sick bastard.
Off to the colleseum with you.

It is kind of sad that the deplorable standard of education has been a long term decline, particularly given the extremely almost non existent level of comprehension displayed in some posts here.

Nero, for example, was only one high profile example and, as clearly stated (but possibly not understood obviously) in the article - "While perhaps one of the more high profile examples, it is not the only one. And the fluidity of the definition of marriage is not limited to Roman emperors"

Please read the bold bit a couple of times to allow for the implications of the statement to sink in.

Oh, and reading all the way to the bottom (I realise that this is a particularly challenge because it requires slightly more concentration than a gold fish) the VERDICT is quite clearly articulated,

"The verdict

A significant body of academic work shows that marriage and "other solemnised relationships" have not always been between "a man and a woman". Mr Abbott is incorrect."

Obviously it is difficult to engage in the discussion thoughtfully with meaningful refutation of the work presented, given the first few posts at least. Clearly much easier to simply denigrate one of the examples given then move quickly onto hang a bit of left over shyte for the many authors of a number of works than actually apply some critical thinking to the facts presented. Which, ultimately is a pretty ludicrous thing, given the harsh reality that facts are not actually going to drive the thinking or response to whether or not Gay Marriage is eventually accepted or not.

It would seem far more credible to acknowledge that the position was only what Mr Abbott thought, and, despite there being a long tradition demonstrated of same sex unions etc, I (as in Mr Abbott) do not agree with solemnising said unions as I am not comfortable with them.... Or at least come up with a legitimate argument, because the current one is full of sh1t effectively.

Finally, I don't think Mr Abbott is the only person, leader or Australian PM that has got something wrong, however, he is in very good company of people who may struggle to admit getting stuff wrong....

Phemanderac wrote on Nov 1^st, 2013 at 2:25pm:


maybe you should read it again, if that's what you took from it.

The argument the article makes revolves around "a man and a woman" (ie singular) It doesn't establish a "long tradition of same sex unions" at all.

... wrote on Nov 1^st, 2013 at 2:48pm:


Good point and I stand corrected.

IT does in fact demonstrate that there is a long tradition of unions other than specifically being a man (singular) and a woman (singular), thanks for clarifying that, cheers.

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 1^st, 2013 at 3:09pm:




there was a time when I was on the  gays side .. let them bloody get married I couldnt careless..

but now I am over it.. in fact they take over its all about THEM.. so bugger it..

if I am asked to vote it will be a big fat NO>

and I couldnt careless what Nero was doing..you can betcha it wasnt nice.. didnt he murder his own mother.....sheeeees...a good role model i must say,.