(December 20, 2013 at 3:30 am)Moros Synackaon Wrote: Because you can't fuck a red herring?
Had you bothered to read the article, you would have seen the crux of the anti-gay marriage proponents "... argument that prohibiting same-sex marriage was necessary to protect the government’s “overriding interest of responsible procreation and childrearing.”"
I saw the Op this morning .au time and read the article later in the morning at work.
The judge and the bench have erred in declaring so blatantly that "marriage" has nothing to do with the critical mass of opposite gender, Darwinian mate selection and the mother/father/offspring model we call "the nuclear family".
What the judicial activists, (unlike the voters,) have failed to realise is that by breaking down the nexus between heterosexual mating/procreation and marriage, they have eroded any bulwarks that they might have been able to use to defend against marriage in the form of - consanguineous relationships, marriages of legal convenience, bisexual polygamy, single humans who claim the 'right' to be married to non-humans...etc.
