The ultimate truth about the "gay marriage" question!

Frank Pio Russo - September 09 2017.

In view of the fact that I've been able to dismantle the einsteinian relativity, some people have paraded me as the most rational brain around the place! As such, I would like to extend the benefit of my wisdom to the current "gay marriage" question.

First of all, the truth is that it's nothing to do with equality for as Senator Abetz has stated, there have been about 84 pieces of legislation that have fixed that problem, such that no discrimination now takes place!

Secondly, it has nothing to do with love: some people actually love money more than anything else - does that mean that we should legislate for such a marriage of sorts? The "marriage" term is a very specific technical word to denote the basic unit from which our society grows, through the creation and bringing up of children in a proper environment: i.e. if a gay relationship fails, a gay person with no biological ties to the children, can just walk away claiming he or she has no further responsibility to his or her children, which are in turn left in limbo!? The latter is of course not true in the real and true marriage.

I've got no qualms with gays choosing their own specific term for their gay union... even terms that may - at the current time - be considered as offensive, can in time become quite respectable if put in common usage, as their connotation changes. Why should they be allowed to steal the specific term of a heterosexual union?

There are many types of unions around, and any good language should have specific terms so that people can differentiate one from the others... for example there are:

         1)  Heterosexual union which is specifically denoted by the term "marriage".

         2) Lesbian union which is between two women.

         3) Bugger union which is between 2 men.

         4) Polyamory union which is between more than two partners.

         5) Polyandry union which is between a woman and many men.

         6) Bestiality union which is between a man and a beast.

         7) Polygamy union which is between a man and more than one woman.

Our languages are all dynamic and constantly changing... there are new words added to our dictionaries at every new edition... why not have these groups coin their own specific term that they are happy with?!

Finally, all hell broke loose when Senator Cory Bernardi claimed that such a contemplated legislation, would be the thin edge of the wedge... i.e. would bestiality be next? Personally I believe that if one is keen to insert his most private and intimate member of his body into a "shit hole", nothing is out of the question - not even necrophilia! And the only reason I haven't included the latter in the list, is because a dead body tends to rot and not to be around for a permanent union!

Please... if you've got any brains and common-sense vote no to the coming postal survey and let your politicians know how you feel about it all.

Frank Pio Russo.