The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > ‘Can I thee wed?’ Same-sex marriage in Australia > Comments

‘Can I thee wed?’ Same-sex marriage in Australia : Comments

By John Murphy, published 29/7/2011

Civil marriages comprise 70 per cent of all marriages in Australia, and increasing, and almost the same percentage of Australian citizens favor same-sex marriage.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. All
Quote: Equal opportunity for gay couples in permanent care orders (close to but not the same as adoption rights), surrogacy and IVF technology also seems to confirm this right. It is contradictory that one right is recognised and not the other.

Here's another right which is breached when homosexual couples "parent" a child. A child cannot have two mothers or two fathers - his or her parents comprise a male and a female.

U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child
Article 7
1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and, as far as possible, the RIGHT TO KNOW AND BE CARED FOR BY HIS OR HER PARENTS
Posted by L.B.Loveday, Friday, 29 July 2011 8:46:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Government should no longer provide for the registration of marriages between heterosexual couples and should not register same sex marriages . If this is done , same sex couples will no longer suffer discrimination in this respect .

Couples who wish to have a mariage ceremony will be able to be married in a church ceremony , provided that they can find a church which is prepared to celebrate the marriage . Otherwise , they or heterosexual couples can arrange their own ceremony with a celebrant but the ceremony will not be registered by the government . Photographs of the ceremony can still be taken and hung on the wall , rice can be thrown and all the other paraphernalia of marriage can still be observed . Celebrants need no longer be registered .

There is already legislation which provides for custody of children , including ex - nuptial children , and for maintenance and settlement of property . That legislation should be retained .
Rights of same sex partners to inherit property and receive superannuation and other financial benefits can be protected through legislation , without the need for a marriage certificate .

Given that a very high percentage of heterosexual marriages end in divorce and that there is no longer any stigma attached to ex - nuptial children , there is no longer any need for government recognition of marriage .
Posted by jaylex, Friday, 29 July 2011 9:36:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why do you think any of this is your business, John Murphy?

Marriage is a private matter and ought to be a no-go area for the government. Do and think what you like for yourself, but leave other people to do the same.
Posted by DavidL, Friday, 29 July 2011 9:54:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lord, how confusing this author's name is! I immediately thought it must have been by that idiot NSW backbencher of the same name defending his ridiculous statements a few days ago. The same man, I'd like to remind everyone, that complained on the floor of Parliament that his wife's meal in the Parliament House cafeteria was too small! How lucky we are all to have such wonderful politicians, who are so in touch with the real world.

Anyway, great article, John.

Loveday - venting your outrage at same sex couples who have the temerity to want to raise children is quite hysterical. Many straight couples who have to use donor materials to conceive have gone to some lengths to make sure their children don't know that their biological inputs come from elsewhere. Are you as outraged about that, I wonder? At least same-sex couples have to come clean with their kids about where they come from!

So spare me. Disguising your homophobia as 'will someone please think of the children?' is so 1990's.
Posted by Cosmogirl, Friday, 29 July 2011 9:59:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm on complete agreement with jaylex and DavidL. There is no reason for either the government or the church(es) to interfere with the private relationships between people. Do people really think that it is the laws which guide society and not vice versa? People will continue to live exactly how they are living now, just without the discrimination that currently exists due to these outdated laws.
Posted by Stezza, Friday, 29 July 2011 1:04:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Marriage is a publicly declared and legal agreement between a man and a woman to engage in sex to the exclusion of all others for the purpose of raising a family. This has to be a legal and registered agreement to avoid disputes in custody and genetic lineage. It is therefore a Government registration that would stand up to scientific and legal evidence to prove parentage.

Marriage therefore is only relavent as it applies to the raising of children. Try doing your family tree or genetic heritage without proper registered genetic lineage.

The term marriage referrs to the union of the male sperm with a female ovum to produce another person in their image. Unless that occurrs it is not marriage in the scientific meaning of the term "to join together things of different substance. The religious term means just that "the two become one flesh" it is a complementary union of different genger to produce one flesh. Two males or two females engaging in sex will never produce another in their likness and it a social lie and deception to so pretend!
Posted by Philo, Friday, 29 July 2011 2:21:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Get another word, marriage is for man and wife, no one expects they may have to explain their wife is a female. This movement has done nothing but take words away from kids, that have been used for centuries.
Surely you can have a civil union without the word marriage
Posted by a597, Friday, 29 July 2011 3:07:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Births and marriages, divorce and deaths are registered by the State to keep a record of its legal citizens for planning, employment and welfare. Children born within the State are registered citizens of the State and must be accomodated, educated and evacuated. Children are not independent persons from parent or guardians until 18. A Child has a right to know their birth parents.

It is not for the State to keeo a register of relationships where no offspring will ever occurr and call it marriage. There are already laws to cover property and shared responsibility. Calling persons of the same gender in a relationship married does not meet the criterion of of the term married.
Posted by Philo, Friday, 29 July 2011 4:00:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo so those Opposite sex couples who cannot have children, should be denied access to IVF treatment or their marriage annulled; including those whom choose not to have children.
Must tell my Dad 80 years and my Stepmother 75 years who years ago lost their respective spouses, and eventually found each other to happily share their lives together, that their marriage is not a true marriage says Philo.
Philo you have a poor understanding of love, and may your god whomever she or he is forgive you.
Posted by Kipp, Friday, 29 July 2011 4:10:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kipp,
Obvioisly you can only think of exceptions to the principle of healthy sperm and ovum to mount a case. Exception do not establish the principle of marriage. Beside in couples that cannot produce healthy offspring as in the case of infirtility or age the designed act of sex can be fulfilled. The female vagina and womb has no other design purpose than to accomodate the male penis and bearing of children. In both cases the intention and design of gender is fulfilled in an exclusion of all other persons. Are you telling me couples who cannot or choose not to have children abstain from normal gender sex?

My God designed the whole purpose of human sexuality and set some principles in place for the best growth of human society. Only man prefers to pervert its holy purpose. For which perversion there is no forgivness, even as adultry or peadophilia if it is not forsaken as abnormal.

Please explain to me how same sex or anul sex fulfills Divine or evolutionary design.
Posted by Philo, Friday, 29 July 2011 5:23:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Love in any form is beautiful and has absolutly nothing to do with religion, or anyone else.
Anal sex is common in hetrosexual relationships, and your detailed interest in the sexual act borders on the bizarre.
Posted by Kipp, Friday, 29 July 2011 5:37:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
" Disguising your homophobia as 'will someone please think of the children?' is so 1990's".

Quoting a UN Convention to which Australia is a signatory constitutes "disguising homophobia"! I don't disguise any of my opinions (I'm steadfast in standing by them - they are all well-considered) or phobias, even my claustrophobia.

Why not label me racist and, or, misogynist/misandrist? There is equal justification for that in my post, viz none that is rational.

The more I see/hear/read of people like "Cosmogirl", hurling her ill-informed, ill-considered, puerile abuse from the coward's cover of a pseudonym the more I tend to misanthropy.

The 90's were definitely better, albeit nowhere as good as the golden 60's.
Posted by L.B.Loveday, Friday, 29 July 2011 5:48:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"It is not for the State to keeo a register of relationships where no offspring will ever occurr and call it marriage. "

Philo are you married?

Are you planning to have more children within that marriage?

If you are married but unlikely to have more children within that marriage would you agree that by the claims you make your marriage is no longer important and should be cancelled by the government?

I'm with those who think that the government should get out of the registering marriages business but while they are in it there should not be discrimination based on the sexual orientation of consenting adults.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 29 July 2011 5:54:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert

Completely agree. Really nice to agree on something.

Philo makes no allowance for married heterosexual couples who do not plan to have children.
Posted by Ammonite, Friday, 29 July 2011 5:58:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm just amused by Philo's claim that 'marriage' is a scientific term. It makes me think of the little old lady who was puzzled when one of her two dogs got pregnant. It was explained to her that two animals of the same species and different sexes would normally engage in coitus if permitted to. "What!?" she said, outraged, "But they're not even MARRIED!"
Posted by Jon J, Friday, 29 July 2011 7:42:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is an emotive subject for many people for a variety
of reasons. Each society views its own patterns of marriage,
family, and kinship as self-evidently right and proper,
and usually God-given as well. If we assume that there is
only one "right" form of marriage, then naturally any change
will be interpreted as heralding the doom of the whole
institution.

However, it is therefore important to recognize that there
is an immense range in marriage, family, and kinship patterns.
Each of these patterns may be, at least in its own context,
perfectly viable, and above all, that marriage, like any other
social institution must inevitably change through time, in our
own society as in all others.

It's therefore not a question of "if," but "When," as far as
same-sex marriage is concerned in this country. It should either
be voted on in Parliament - as a conscience vote - or have a
Referendum and let the nation decide.
Posted by Lexi, Friday, 29 July 2011 9:09:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loving Bonds between people is not marriage. A mothers love for her Child is not a marriage and Government has no need to record that loving bond. However the Government has a responsibility to record that mother has a child and she is responsible for it's welfare for the security and benifit to the whole of that Society.

Marriage is more than love it is an exclusive celebration of the sexual design of gender, and it is recorded by the State so anarchy and disorder does not reign. Humans resemble the divine for principle and order rather than the lower animal instincts -"if it feels good".
Posted by Philo, Saturday, 30 July 2011 4:47:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,

"Humans resemble the divine for principle and order rather than the lower animal instincts..."

Humans have construed a notion of themselves as representing principle and order - attributes of the divine. The reality, however, is that they exist at a crossroads between the two realities.
So much of human behaviour is guided by instinct that it is necessary for us to construct social mechanisms to accommodate the incongruities. How else would we intellectually digest the fact that our instinctual need for sex - no different from other mammals - is not a shambolic regression, but something "sanctified" by a higher order
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 30 July 2011 7:16:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not really true, a597… Isn't it, no one expects the Spanish Inquisition? And I've met both males and females who do expect they may have to explain their wife is a female.

"Surely you can have a civil union without the word marriage" doesn't seem unreasonable given the number of marriages that are unions which are barely civil.

You challenge us to "get another word, marriage is for man and wife…"

Espousal might work and allows for the gender neutral term spouse to be used when referring to your 'better half '.

Anyway, since you want the word marriage reserved as above, what's your word for woman and husband?
Posted by WmTrevor, Saturday, 30 July 2011 9:06:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm going to ask a question here, hoping to find an answer to something I really don't know about, so please don't simply shoot me down.

Many hetro couples today don't bother with marriage at all preferring to simply "shack-up." After a period of time, a split in the relationship means that they share the spoils of that arrangement, children or none.

Now, I'm not privy to all that happens with regards to legality in a same sex arrangement similar to the above which is why I ask this......

What difference does a piece of paper make for either a same sex or heterosexual couple? I thought something had been legally put in place that now means the partner of a deceased person in a same sex relationship gets access to the decease's superannuation etc?

I suppose what I'm trying to ask is, what advantage if any is there in marriage for same sex couples? Do same sex couples miss out on something that heterosexual couples "shacking-up" get legally if the relationship goes sour?
Posted by Aime, Saturday, 30 July 2011 2:21:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shouldn't we remember that gender (including homosexuals) is an accident of Birth. Now if that "accident" meets up with, and wants to spend the rest of his/her life with another "accident", and live happily ever after, who the hell are we to judge.
I googled "what causes homosexuality", and the results were quite astonishing, there was so much information that I cringed. Now, when my Stepfather passed away, I used to take my Mum to church on Sundays. The Bishop that we had there had a daughter who became pregnant when she was single, and a boy who was homosexual, and one other son who was 'normal' (whatever 'normal' is). He loved and accepted all three of his kids for who they were and how they lived their lives. So what I would like to know, is this: "Who the hell are we as human beings to judge anybody because of the flaws of Nature?"
NSB
Posted by Noisy Scrub Bird, Saturday, 30 July 2011 3:18:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said NSB, but I don't know that I'd agree with homosexuality as being a flaw. Nature is nature and it creates what it likes when it likes.

The sexual spectrum is like a huge arc with full masculinity or feminism at one end and the exact opposite at the other. Every degree we see within that arc is simply part of nature. To try and pin a tag of "normality" or "flaw" on any of those degrees is probably not anyone's right.
Posted by Aime, Saturday, 30 July 2011 3:54:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Aime,

Same sex couples in a de-facto relationship have the same
legal rights as heterosexual couples, this has been the case
since July 2009. The only difference being that same sex
couples are not allowed to be registered as being married.
Thereby making their union lesser in society than that of
heterosexual couples.
Posted by Lexi, Saturday, 30 July 2011 4:22:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for the explanation Lexi. I had an idea things had changed in that respect.

Still can't see what the big deal is about marriage though. After all, it's just a piece of paper and considered quite worthless by a majority of the hetro community that swap partners like underwear.
Posted by Aime, Saturday, 30 July 2011 4:52:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Marriage is not merely based in sentiment but on exclusive consentual sexual agreement of a man and woman for life.

What is the point of the State legalizing a sentimental same sex bonding relationship if it does not produce offspring?

The State has no purpose in keeping such a record as it will never of itself produce children.

Married couples are affected by State Welfare payments no matter the age; they receive less welfare than two single.

However under Shariah registering same sex partners could be an advantage to have anul sex criminalised.
Posted by Philo, Saturday, 30 July 2011 5:18:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo <"What is the point of the State legalizing a sentimental same sex bonding relationship if it does not produce offspring? The State has no purpose in keeping such a record as it will never of itself produce children. "

So, you are suggesting that older heterosexual couples, infertile heterosexual couples, and gay couples do not get married because they will never produce children then Philo?

That's a bit harsh isn't it?
What if one or the other of the gay couple actually do produce offspring? Can they marry then?

(PS Anal sex is spelled with 2 A's)
Posted by suzeonline, Saturday, 30 July 2011 6:21:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Aime,

It is important to some couples and I guess everyone wants
to have the right to marry if they so choose and not have
someone of a religious persuasion forbid them to do it
simply because they don't fit into their version of what a
marriage should be. It should be a private matter between
two consenting adults (hetero or gay - no difference).

As the old adage says - "We should all be for the
separation of church and hate."
Posted by Lexi, Saturday, 30 July 2011 6:34:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aime "shacking up" is one thing but wanting to spend the rest of your life with the person you love is the real thing.
You have to be aware that homosexuality was once a criminal status, and an example for you in mirror form for those days, if you fancied
(assuming your female)a bloke and had sex with him you would be charged by law for that alleged sex act, because the law stated what you did was illegal.
During those years and even today gay people self harm and kill themselves because of the stigma that is placed upon them, just because of whom they are.
Aime you will never know why same sex loving couples want marriage, until you walk a mile in their shoes,and experience what they have had to deal with in their lives
It is not about understanding, it is about accepting that their are other people in life with emotional needs, other than our individual selves.

signed:
Kipp and Baz Same sex happy couple this 35 years.
Posted by Kipp, Saturday, 30 July 2011 7:45:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lexi, I had the impression that it can be more difficult for unmarried couples (of any orientation) when it comes to "Next of Kin" type situations.

Suzie may have a better idea on that but my impression is that if there is no formal recognition of a relationship then things could get tricky when it comes to urgent medical decisions (consent for medical treatment for an incapacitated partner or in the worst case turning off life support, organ donation etc).

There are probably other ways around that (enduring power of attorney etc) but I suspect it could be much more difficult in some situations than if you are married.

At least for defacto hetrosexual couples it's a statement of where they choose to be rather than all that's allowed.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Sunday, 31 July 2011 1:26:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear RObert,

I believe that in cases of defacto relationships - you have to
be able to prove that you were in a defacto relationship. The
legal rights are the same for both hetero and same-sex couples.
Anyway, here's a website that may help:

http://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/defacto.htm

Of course the laws may be different in each state.
Posted by Lexi, Sunday, 31 July 2011 2:51:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Aimie,
Yes, my wording was a little wrong, I was really referring to what Nature had done genetically to some people, and yes, Nature does have a mind of her own, but I think that you generally got my drift.
Thanks for your post.

And you too, Lexi, your posts, as always are well written and informative.
Cheers,
NSB
Posted by Noisy Scrub Bird, Sunday, 31 July 2011 3:01:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Same sex marriages were legalised in Michigan, and now the divorces and legal battles for child custody begin.

This is the first, with the non-biological lesbian mother of the children claiming she is not being regarded as a parent after the divorce.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjnJ8iioAt4&feature=relmfu

Ironic for feminists, after their sustained attack on heterosexual marriage and natural fathers.
Posted by vanna, Sunday, 31 July 2011 4:18:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When I learned biology and botany in school 60 years ago - to produce children it took a man and a woman; that there were male and female organs. I have since proved it having children of my own. Gender is biologically complementary to the other to have children.

Most men and women even if homosexual are fertile and capable of producing children but certainly not with another of the same gender, unless evolution has changed the facts since I went to school.

Marriage was established to be for life and to give security and family environment to children. There has since develpoed registrations of convienience and for comport; but that does not define the actual term - "marriage". Marriage is a biological term meaning bringing together of two of different gender to produce a totally independent person. That they are registered by the State is not a register of who loves each other, but who has a responsibility for each other and who is their offspring.
Posted by Philo, Monday, 1 August 2011 12:36:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I should inform you philo that the facts have indeed changed since you attended school 60 years ago. It is possible for same sex partners to produce children. Also the term marriage is not a biological term, never has and never will be. I believe you are confusing the term marriage with procreate.

There are many other things that have changed in the last 60 years, and it is not to late to enroll in the school of life to learn all about the world in the 21st century.
Posted by Stezza, Monday, 1 August 2011 2:54:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fine, Loveday, I'll bite.

I will apologise for my charge of homophobia if you could please explain where this 'right' of a child TO KNOW AND BE CARED FOR BY HIS OR HER PARENTS (your emphasis) starts and finishes? Please particularly point out how that relates to same-sex couples, as opposed to the thousands of other permutations on parenting that science and society have enabled?

Please ensure you give us your take on how one defines a 'parent', donor sperm, donor eggs, surogacy, and blended families.

I can't wait!
Posted by Cosmogirl, Monday, 1 August 2011 9:55:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My dear Kip (and Baz).

"Aime you will never know why same sex loving couples want marriage, until you walk a mile in their shoes,and experience what they have had to deal with in their lives"

Kip, with all due respect, I walk every waking minute in shoes far more uncomfortable than yours. At least you have a partner and you have places to go with him. You have someone to help keep you secure, safe, someone to hold during cold winter nights and frolic with on those long summer evenings.

Even though from all outward appearances, I'm a successful woman in my late 50's and in fine physical condition, I have none of the above. Apart from work and one or two good friends, I'm a recluse and for a very good reason. For me, life is spent trying not to think about how I'll manage in my twilight years for they'll be nobody to share them with me and a nursing home is not an option.

Strangely enough, I'm reasonably happy with my lot in life. I just wish I could have the opportunity that even gay people have and that's to find a soul mate so that we can live out our remaining years together, but it can never be!

Now Kip, who's shoes would you prefer to walk in?
Posted by Aime, Monday, 1 August 2011 12:37:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stezza,
It is pointless claiming natural human gender has changed by divine design or evolution in the last 60 years. Until you can demonstrate the facts of that evolutionary change that two males can produce a child from their union you are merely spouting vain and deceptive words.

Marriage has always been the physical union of a man and woman sexually bonding to produce their child. The State required registration for censis records. Jesus birth was caught in a censis during the Roman occupation of Israel about 004BC. The Christian Church later took responsibility for record keeping of births, marriages and deaths for the Roman Empire as it saw the responsibility for family care and welfare.

Marriage has never been merely a sentimental bonding between two persons. There has never been any reguirement by the State that such a bond be recorded; and as some have earlier stated the State should not be involved in relationships defined on those terms.
Posted by Philo, Monday, 1 August 2011 1:13:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aime only you can answer the way you feel and the way you are today,
and my response was to your question and you now use it as emotional blackmail.
I think my oroginal point was made.
Posted by Kipp, Monday, 1 August 2011 3:06:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is wonderful to read John Murphy's balanced and sensible article. It is less wonderful to read some of the 30 or more comments that follow, particularly those written by Philo.

Bit by bit we learn more and more about Philo which, sadly, proves more and more why Philo is bigoted and ignorant. First clue, the playing of the religious fundamentalist card, next clue the "in my day when I was at school" mantra. It is sad that people who claim to have a fundamental, "Bible-based" Christian faith coupled with great age/wisdom aren't usually more compassionate, accepting and open-minded.

I cannot agree with anything Philo has listed as "fact" why marriage equality for same-sex attracted people should not be permitted. One by one Philo's "facts" are confronted - marriage is for procreation only (several respondents have taken Philo to task over that one but to no avail, Philo keeps on about it), marriage is defined by heterosexual activity (no, marriage is traditionally about property not sex), children cannot be properly raised except in a male-female marriage (not even going to start deconstructing that one).

Philo, you are certainly entitled to your views, however you cannot claim that they are a) correct, when there is ample evidence to show they are not and b)accepted by everyone, when again they are clearly not.

Granting full marriage equality will not devalue anyone's current marriage, any future marriage and it won't cause society to descend into a molten pit of excessive depravity. Time and again opponents of marriage equality are asked to provide reasons why marriage equality will damage the fabric of society. Time and again they cannot.

Each of the countries listed at the top of this article have not had unmitigated disasters befall them, life has carried on, people have been married, children have been born and raised and will go on to be married should they wish it. Nothing will happen in Australia when marriage equality is granted except that people of the same gender both consenting will be able to be married to each other. Let that day be soon!
Posted by Perkin Warbeck, Monday, 1 August 2011 3:51:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Marriage always constitutes a bride (female gender) giving herself to her husband (male gender). Initially she was a virgin giving herself in sexual union to her husband and it was this act that was celebrated in the ceremony and the blessing of fertility and children resulting was what was envisaged in the union. It was because of this possibility that the union was registered with the State, because it affected population, education, national security and welfare etc.

Please tell me what purpose is served by the State registering homosexual relationships? Two men cannot both be father and mother of a child. The child has the right to bonding with its birth mother. That children can be brought from suggorate women reduces the sacred value and rights of a child, and treats the child as a traded comody.
Posted by Philo, Monday, 1 August 2011 4:01:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo: sorry to inform you that we do not live in theocracy, we never have lived in a theocracy. Constantine the Great when he issued his Edict of Milan in CE 313 tolerating Christianity began the process of folding the church into the State and, rather like your view of marriage, the two became one. Marriage is registered by the State to provide a mechanism for taxation, welfare and social planning.

As for children... please... there is no "right" anywhere on this planet that states a child has the "right" to bond with their birth mother. By dragging this debate about the establishment of legal, recognized same gender marriage equal to that of established opposite gender marriage through some by-ways about the rightness of child rearing is both scurrilous and disingenuous.
Posted by Perkin Warbeck, Monday, 1 August 2011 4:17:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No Kip. I'm truly sorry if you took at my post as emotional blackmail. That was never my intention and if you knew me on a personal level, you'd quickly come to realise that I don't work that way.

Unfortunately, posts written haphazardly or in hast sometimes come across with a different slant on the meaning. I've read back over my post and I suppose it's the last line you'd be referring as emotional blackmail, and yes, I'm afraid I didn't stop to consider your vulnerabilities before hitting the send key.

All I was trying to say in answer to your post was that there have been times when I wished I'd been born gay for at least then I'd have some chance of forming a sincere relationship unlike the way things are.

So Kip (and Baz), all I can do is offer my apologies and wish you both all the very best for a long and happy life.
Posted by Aime, Monday, 1 August 2011 4:19:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aime we both you wish well and that you find what you seek
xx
Posted by Kipp, Monday, 1 August 2011 4:25:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aime I've been saddened by your posts. I'm struggling to find suitable words for that but I do hope things change for you. Perhaps a bit closer to home that it might be at other times, a friend who is close to retirement lost his wife unexpectedly in an accident recently. A reminder of how much of what we expect and value can be gone without warning.

I am left wondering why you think being gay would give you a better chance of forming a sincere relationship though.

Maybe not the place for that discussion but if it's what it seems like I'd suggest it may not be sexual orientation that's the issue but what you look for in a partner. We are not all insincere so and so's. I'm not trying to be hurtful with that, more in a vein of don't give up, try something different.

Best wishes
R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 1 August 2011 5:13:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear RObert. Thank you for your concern and you're quite right. This really isn't the place for a discussion about my plight, but I assure you it's got nothing to do with me being fussy. I see the inner beauty in everyone. My last partner was a very unusual man who had been through a lot, but he was unique in that he took me for what I am and never questioned it. Such a person is very rare. If I hadn't insisted that he give up riding his push-bike and start driving a car he might still be with me, but he "left" suddenly in early 2004, so although I'll never forget him, I'm well over the painful part today.

RObert, from your posts I believe you're a kind and level headed person, so I'll just say that although I haven't completely given up on finding another special somebody, the reality is that it's highly unlikely to happen to the point where I no longer think about it, but for all that I'm happy enough with my lot in life, so please don't feel sad. I have family & grandchildren and a head full of short stories to write, so for now that'll do.
Posted by Aime, Monday, 1 August 2011 8:57:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am still waiting for a homosexual to say something positive about heterosexual marriage.

(Rather like waiting for a feminist of university academic to say something positive about the male gender).

While everyone is supposed to be tolerant of homosexuality, there doesn't appear to be much said in support of heterosexuality.

As for children to be conceived in a testube in an IVF clinic, a disgusting abomination of nature, suitable only as a feminist fantasy, but in no way suitable in reality.
Posted by vanna, Monday, 1 August 2011 8:57:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perkin Warbeck,
Sorry to inform you that most countries register marriage - it has nothing to do with theocracy. The Greek and Roman Empire recorded marriages as I stated long before Rome became a Christian State, for the purposes I have stated.

Marriages were associated in society with fertility (producing offspring), and they were for life. Homosexuality was frequently practised in Greece and Rome, but it was never considered a marriage as married men engaged in such acts, as much as they did prostitution. These society was considered as decadent for such behaviour. Most sexual diseases are spread by multiple partners and anal sex. Therefore avoidance leads to a healthy society.

The Christian Church has always recognised such practises as against the purpoese of God and the welfare of the State
Posted by Philo, Monday, 1 August 2011 8:59:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Aime,

Sounds to me like you could do with a bit
of a laugh so here goes...

Men are like parking spaces.
The good ones are taken
And the only ones left are handicapped.

So chin up - you're doing fine!
Posted by Lexi, Monday, 1 August 2011 11:50:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Vanna: What a strange post! Ok, to make you happy... homosexual man here - two heterosexual parents, married for 53 years next month, strongly support their union. Brother, heterosexual, married (for the second time) in 2009. Attended both his weddings in an "official" capacity and strongly support his marriage. Godson, parents both heterosexual, married some 25 years. Strongly support their union. (As for your "abomination" comment about IVF, I am sure all the heterosexual, married couples who have been unable to conceive with thank you for your torrent of abuse.)

Philo: I really wish you'd give some context for the bland statements you make. I note that in your defence of "traditional" marriage you do not mention the "traditional" forms of polygamy (as noted frequently and without condemnation in the Bible), nor do you make much of the "tradition" that women are possessions, from birth to marriage the property of the father then at the time of marriage given to a husband. (Hence that line "Who gives this woman to be married to this man?") Marriage has been redefined constantly over the centuries. By adding same gender equality to marriage will do nothing more that including people who are your family, neighbours, friends - or do you wish to keep marriage as an exclusive little club for practicing heterosexuals only?

As for your last remark about infection etc - the rate of sexual transmitted infections is greatest in... guess who - heterosexual liaisons. And, Philo, it might shock you... but heterosexuals have anal sex too.
Posted by Perkin Warbeck, Tuesday, 2 August 2011 6:45:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perkin Warbeck,
Polygamy was practised because of the shortage of men due to tribal warring and the wives were always virgin or widows. Your claim women were possessions, from birth to marriage the property of the father then at the time of marriage given to a husband is a misrepresentation. The parent was the guardian of the child as girls married in their teenage years. Only women can produce children and marriage envisaged that and consent was given.

By adding same gender equality to marriage will redefine it to mean nothing more that emotional bonding and of those practising anal sex and is not relative to State records. Your claim I wish to keep marriage as an exclusive little club for practicing heterosexuals only, indicates your envy of reality? If you want family marry a woman, who can naturally nurture your child. It has nothing to do with an exclusive Club.

If you had read my position previously posted on anal sex you would realise that it is this practise that causes high levels of gynaclogical infections in women. My wife a senior midwife during the 1970s worked with a gynacologist in Cornell University Hospital; claimed bacteria found in the anal area entering the sterile uterus transmitted much of the diseases to women. However there is one section of society that has high levels of AIDS, hepatitus and ruptured bowel for its % in the population
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 2 August 2011 9:27:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo

Your interpretation of the meaning of marriage is but one of many. In your case it is determined primarily by your religion and some part of western culture. It is not the only definition - your inability to acknowledge that different people have different cultural and religious beliefs undermines your opinions on same sex marriage. You are free to practice your religion and beliefs, you do not hold sway over other people's religion and beliefs.

Just as you free to post your opinion here, so are others. You are free to disagree and so are others. Where you infringe upon the freedoms of other people is by your position banning others from forming the social bond known as marriage.

Perhaps you should read the following:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200505/marriage-history

As I stated at the outset your version of marriage is but one.
Posted by Ammonite, Tuesday, 2 August 2011 9:38:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you Ammonite for the lucid response to Philo.

Philo: to take a couple of points. Misrepresentation? I'm sorry Philo, but what is misrepresented? Marriage was a contract not a love match. I find it laughable that you a) claim that the reason a female passed from one male to another in ownership was because she was young...what about those females who were not young? They were still the property of the senior male of the family; b) and your claim that polygamy was because of a shortage of men due to tribal warring? Really? Please provide any valid references to support this new theory.

Which brings me to your wife and those figures - was that her opinion, her considered research in her time at Cornell or do you have some peer reviewed and annotated documents that can back up that claim?

Finally, your own words continue to sound ridiculous - you tell me that I should marry a woman to have a family. Again, this shows how narrow and prejudiced your world view is. Let me state this for you - I am a homosexual man, I always have been a homosexual man. I do not have sexual, romantic or physical feelings or attraction for a female. As for fathering children, I believe that we have been able to find ways that can allow me to be a father, should I so wish. Currently, I don't wish it but I do not stop anyone else, male or female, same gender attracted or not, single or in a relationship from proceeding along that path. Provided the child born is nurtured in a loving, accepting and open minded supporting family, I do not care what parenting model is being used.

Your views are yours, but you have no right to state that they are categorically the only views that are valid, because you base them on religious texts and outmoded historical behavioural tenets. Please look beyond the "Thou shalt not" and find the "Thou shalt". Much better place to argue from, isn't it?
Posted by Perkin Warbeck, Tuesday, 2 August 2011 11:02:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As far as I'm aware the George, Anderson, Girgis article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public policy had homo marriage supporting poltical philosophers publicly embarrassing themselves. No decent reply has been forthcoming as of writing full stop- let alone befitting a proposal for the most radical social change in human history. LOL

Carbon taxes are what we make them, marriage is what we make it, we feel kinda groovy about lurve so lets tear down marriage. Hey no one likes pollution right! hey lets tax the coal industry away. LOL

We have adolescents, who wouldn't know self-government in the sexual realm if took human form and danced naked in front of them, in adult bodies screaming for stuff that they want and they want it now damn it! LOL

Eve Tushnet, a same-sex attracted woman has written a piece http://www.staycatholic.com/what_homosexuals_want.htm that hopefully, in addition to the George article 'What Marriage Is' will enlighten. So that we can move on people. Calling people haters, or calling Eve Tushnet a bigot is just Brownshirt stuff and convinces no one.

Can we grow up and start talking marriage renewal rather than redefinition and destruction, can we talk about how we are to preserve it for the next generation and stop pretending it isn't the hyperindividualism and selfish adult desire of heterosexuals predominately, rather than interest in children, that is driving this nonsense.

Crikey the radical liberal Greens recognise stable old growth ecologies everywhere in nature but all of a sudden there is no such thing as a human nature, complimentarity of the sexes or rights of children to a mun and dad when it stands to increase their power as ssm does. When it comes to human nature and the most primitive human government, that primitive society, the male-female sexual relationship all old growth ecology ceases to exist! Watermelons.

And for what its worth some political philosophy read and stop making a nuisance of yourselves http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2011/07/community-and-liberty-or-individualism-and-statism/
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Tuesday, 2 August 2011 4:19:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perkin Warbeck,
The concept that IVF is for "married couples who have been unable to conceive" is a farce.

There are IVF clinics now that have a majority of single women as their clients.

To be conceived in a test tube without a father is an abomination of nature, and eventually there will be a backlash.

However, well done for supporting heterosexual marriage.

First time I have ever heard a homosexual supporting heterosexuality and heterosexual marriage.

Maybe, one day, in the not so distant future, on a planet called Earth, a feminist or university academic may also say something positive about the male gender.
Posted by vanna, Tuesday, 2 August 2011 7:48:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Vanna: thank you for your response. May I suggest you open your ears a little more often and you will hear that sort of message repeatedly?

I do find it laughable, truly laughable, that you claim that IVF is "fatherless". Unless you are aware of some medical procedure that has found a way to reproduce a human embryo without sperm then that statement stands condemned as false and malicious. (Same goes for the comment about "IVF clinics with single women as the majority of recipients of treatment" - please - if you have reputable, identifiable figures to support that claim, then share them.)

Martin: what on earth are you on about? Could you provide some link to the first statement you made? (Something to do with someone embarrassing themselves publicly I think you were saying, but it is hard to decipher.) Speaking of hard to decipher, the rest of your post goes into equally odd territory. (Your two links go to some very strange places.) However, when did environmental policy enter into a debate on marriage equality? For that matter, Philo, vanna, Martin et al - when did child bearing and rearing enter a debate about marriage equality? The whole issue about bearing and raising children has nothing to do with marriage equality. If you wish to argue about the rights and wrongs of parenting, then confine it to that debate, not this one.

Those of us arguing for full marriage equality are asking for one man or one woman to be free to marry the one man or one woman of their choice, given that both are of legal age and capable of giving consent and freely do so, not currently legally married and that there should be no impediment based on the gender of that couple seeking marriage. Nothing more. Please argue on those grounds and I will have greater respect for what you are trying to say.
Posted by Perkin Warbeck, Wednesday, 3 August 2011 12:10:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perkin the real question is what on earth are you on about?

Your tribe want to completely re-order society from the ground up, want to persuade us that heterosexual marriage is a source of irrational prejudice and deserves to be legislated away. Yet you don't know the major lines of argument that your people put up nor the common rejoinders?

The George, Girgis, Anderson article is famous, http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/ some replies are here and and the original http://library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1102279285913-6/GGA+-+What+is+Marriage.pdf

Eve Tushnet http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/05/us/05beliefs.html is among the most well known commentators on marriage in the US. She and Maggie Gallagher run the marriagedebate.com website. Her arguments are well known to readers of The Australian newspaper that published Dr Sommerville's op-ed. How can you not know all this?

The second link is a beautiful summary of the thought of the likes of Philip Blond (adviser to Cameron, Abbott and US Congress) it is you that is strange for taking pride in your ignorance. It means you don't understand the ecology reference, and so can't see marriage for what it is: a pre-political natural institution, something the state may recognise but for God's sake cannot arrogate to itself the authority to redefine it. Give the state that power and you loose hell. Prof. Deenen explained how. Read.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Wednesday, 3 August 2011 2:01:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Martin Ibn Warriq,
Thanks for joining this debate. Obviously homosexuals do not understand that marriage exists exclusivily for family and the continuance of the human species. Of course the Greens find there are too nany humans so homosexuality meets their eco-agenda
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 3 August 2011 4:20:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo you may not be aware but you do not have to be married to breed, and it is hoped that your religous morals extend to your dipping into your pocket, and giving to the many thousands of Somalians that are starving.
Posted by Kipp, Wednesday, 3 August 2011 6:00:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Philo,

Lets look at the facts as things exist in
our society. The great majority of both
men and women begin sexual activity before
marriage. Many Autralian births
are to an unmarried mother, usually a teenager.
Many pregnancies end in abortion.
The number of unmarried couples living together
has tripled in less than two decades. Australians
are staying single longer than ever, and more
than one adult in five now lives alone.

Many Australian marriages are expected to end in
divorce. New alternatives to traditional marriage,
such as the single-parent household, are becoming
steadily more common. And to complicate matters further,
children can now be conceived through artificial means,
sometimes in a laboratory dish.

What does all this mean? It means that your rigid idea
of marriage does not fit in with reality. It is based on the
middle-class "ideal" so relentlessly portrayed in
TV commercials, one that consists of a husband, wife,
and their dependent children. This particular pattern
however, is far from typical. A more accurate conception of
marriage must take into account all the many different
forms that have existed and still exist both in this
country and in other cultures.

Each society views its own patterns of marriage, family,
and kinship as self-evidently, right and proper, and
usually as God-given as well. Much of the current concern
about the fate of marriage stems from this kind of
ethnocentrism. If we assume, as you do, that there is only
one "right" marriage form, then naturally any change will
be interpreted as heralding the doom of the whole institution.

It is important to recognise, therefore, that there is an
immense range in marriage, family, and kinship patterns.
That each of these patterns may be, at least in their own
context, perfectly viable; and above all, that marriage,
like any other social institution, must inevitably change
through time, in our own society as in all others.
Posted by Lexi, Wednesday, 3 August 2011 7:06:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lexi,
So are you proposing all these social situations are best environment for children and family and are therefore to be normalized? Society has then descended into jungle behaviour under what you consider good practices for children and family. Aren't we supposed to be civilized creatures?

Teenagers who engage in having children must register their child, and that child is best raised by its genetic parents. In a civilized society this is marriage and should be registered. Current social pressures ignore the need for some to marry younger as happened previously in society. The thing is society has thrown social responsibility out and normalized anarchy - drugs, violence, abuse, promiscuity etc
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 3 August 2011 7:38:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perkin Warbeck,
An IVF sperm donor is not a father. He is a convenient human incubator of sperm, but he is not a father.

He is a feminist's dream.
Posted by vanna, Wednesday, 3 August 2011 7:49:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Philo,

A closed mind is like a closed book - just a piece of
wood. I'm puzzled by your lack of comprehension skills.
Did you read my entire post?

Marriage patterns have changed. There is an immense range
in marriage - whether you approve or not is beside the point.
You're entitled to lead your life as you see fit - what
you're not entitled to do is impose your views on other
people. Judging others is not your job. All I can say is
whatever is eating you - must be suffering horribly.
Posted by Lexi, Wednesday, 3 August 2011 8:59:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lexi,
I realize we are living in a society post 60's "free love", with anyone is OK. But the fact is that, that society has led to the destruction of the secure and wholesome family unit and the increase in juvenile crime. I compare what society was like before and after that period, and witness the responsible and mature attitudes of children growing up in families with mother and father still together and in love.
Posted by Philo, Thursday, 4 August 2011 9:17:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lexi,
I don't assume you realize you are wishing to impose your values and definitions on me and my society.
Posted by Philo, Thursday, 4 August 2011 9:19:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo

Lexi has not demanded that you turn gay, nor give up your beliefs, merely that you apply the same acceptance that you demand for yourself to others.

Your words:

>> Obviously homosexuals do not understand that marriage exists exclusivily (sic) for family and the continuance of the human species. <<

Are among the most ignorant I have read, how many times, how many posters have pointed out that marriage is not always for procreation?

If that were so, women would still be dying early from having baby after baby instead of using the pill. We have not seen massive families of ten or more children since the early part of the 20th century. I am sure that married couples when they have had the number of children they want, are still having sex. Do you still have sex?

FYI - the human race will not die out, there will always be far more straights and bisexuals to continue the species.

There is not a single valid argument you can make to discriminate against people who love each other declaring their love in a formal union - it is all down to your prejudices which you support from the Old Testament - there is nothing against homosexuality in the New Testament. I understand that you claim to be Christian and not Jewish, or are you cherry picking, yet again, to bolster your own prejudices?

If you have difficulties thinking about gay love, believe me you wouldn't want to spend too much time thinking about straight sex either, for example; the ageing Rupert Murdoch and his lovely young wife, John and Janette Howard, Hugh Hefner with anyone.
Posted by Ammonite, Thursday, 4 August 2011 9:36:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo a lot of the perception of crime could be about coverage.

The trend in homicide rates in Australia has been declining for some time (with occasional blip's).

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.aspx

It's sometimes useful to look at trends in events that won't be impacted by reporting (homicides tend to get reported, petty crime man or may not depending on other factors).

Assault rates have gone up but part of that may be an increased willingness to report assaults (my view). http://www.aic.gov.au/en/statistics/violent%20crime.aspx

I'm not convinced that our society is in the death spiral that some wish to believe it is.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 4 August 2011 9:40:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Martin: if you have to ask "what are you on about", I suggest you read the last paragraph of my previous post. As for your series of quoted luminaries and your accusation that I don't know of these people and their views, yes, I do know who Maggie Gallagher is, I do know who Robert George is (and his egregious article "What is Marriage?"), I wanted you to share your sources with everyone following this debate, so everyone can see the darker side of those campaigning against marriage equality .

Frankly, none of these people you loving quote have any credibility in the marriage debate, especially the dreadful Maggie Gallagher. Robert George is a fundamentalist religious right wing thinker who believes that the union of a man and women is paramount above all others, that homosexuality is morally repugnant and that the state has a right to legislate on and enforce private moral or religious beliefs.

I am not ignorant, Martin. I wonder where your intelligence lies though when you berate me for wanting the state to legislate for marriage equality yet post (and support) articles by people who ask the state to do the same thing but AGAINST marriage equality, claiming that, "Give the state that power and you loose (sic) hell."
Posted by Perkin Warbeck, Thursday, 4 August 2011 2:29:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Vanna: I will no longer debate you on IVF, especially on a Forum topic that is dedicated to marriage equality, because you are clearly small minded and bigoted.

Philo: You really are amazing, aren't you? From your own words, "...you are wishing to impose your values and definitions on me and my society." Firstly, since when was society your personal property and secondly, it is the values that you espouse that are being imposed on others. Can you not see the irony here? Marriage equality will not change your religious life, your view of parenting or even your marriage (if you are still married). You are rapidly falling into the lunatic category with your increasingly inane posts and your lack of ability to debate the issue or answer the questions others have raised directly with you. At least Robert George (as quoted by poster Martin Ibn Warriq) whose "What is Marriage?" paper, while being incorrect in it's argument and conclusion, still managed to conduct a debate using logic even if the application of that logic is faulty. (As pointed out by commentator Rob Tisinai in his series of postings on the Box Turtle Bulletin site rebutting Robert George's argument.)

If you cannot use rational argument and logic to state why marriage equality is unacceptable then I will choose to no longer listen to what you have to say with a critical mindset in place.
Posted by Perkin Warbeck, Thursday, 4 August 2011 2:43:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perkin: Robert George is Princeton university professor of Politics and Law. Calling him names because he supports traditional morality is a desperate ruse. We've used to those tactics from the global warming alarmists who prefer labelling people to honest debate.

The state is a monster these days. Prof. Deneen provided a political and intellectual geneology. It's latest grab was for the right to tax every energetic activity in society - you know the ones that produce that trace gas CO2. Now giving that same monster the authority to define nature in whatever way it likes is to loose hell - it ends with biotechnological nightmares. The remaking, conditioning of human nature itself by legal fiat. Brave New Worlds.

No one needs a state to define marriage, no PC police, no indoctrination of children in primary school, no hate speech laws to coerce approval, no socialist agenda underwritten by tax payer funded human rights bureaucracies. It is simple, natural and human cultures arrange it quite spontaneously. It precedes the state, i.e you don't get states unless you have marriages and children first. We have lived with marriage since time out of mind. Your people want to call it bigoted to reject the view of sex and human goods that has grown to dominate in the academy from its roots in the ’50s and ’60s, in Sanger and Hefner, Kinsey and Reich.

Of course I berate you for wanting to install that thinking into law, it would come with enormous cost impeding our flourishing in all the ways Eve Tushnet outlined, cause wrenching division in society, and cede massive political power to a small class of political elite.

I find your use of the word 'equality' cynical. Overwhelmingly homosexuals have taken pride in being utterly unequal to heterosexuals; considering their relationships liberating and freeing and monogamy and child rearing bourgeois moral restriction. Not more than a tiny fraction of the tiny fraction of homosexuals would actually marry. And it isn't "equal" for the children deliberately denied their mum or dad.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Thursday, 4 August 2011 4:23:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perkin Warbeck
"clearly small minded and bigoted"

Hardly at all.

If the idea is to have lesbian homosexual marriage, where one or both women have children through IVF, (and such situations are occurring), then the matter needs closer scrutiny.

The lesbian women might want children to be conceived in a test tube, but the children may not.

The children may also want a real father, and not an IVF sperm donor, who is just a human incubator of sperm with no attachment to the children at all.
Posted by vanna, Thursday, 4 August 2011 6:29:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Martin what is "Traditonal Morality", is this some sort of motto for those of the religous right, who denigrate those they consider to be unacceptable.
Martin let some love into your life, as you may quote "academic" essays, but they are just words of a sole person with one outlook on life; and do not reflect the true broad positive spectrum of life.
Posted by Kipp, Thursday, 4 August 2011 6:50:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ammonite,
For the record: Romans 1:26 "For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error".

The Early Christian Church outlawed participation in the sexual rituals of the Roman God - Juno. Where homosexual acts were considered normal behaviour. Christianity cannot accept sexual perversion as normal and be true to the moral purity of Christ.
Posted by Philo, Thursday, 4 August 2011 8:00:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kipp. We have a nature and can act to fulfill it and become more human, i.e. to grow in the capacity to love and be loved. Eating dirt does not fulfil our nature, neither does vice, which tends toward disintegration of the human personality. Traditional morality simply takes our experience seriously and reflects on what leads to human flourishing and says 'this is good'. It takes seriously our entire existence and experience, e.g it takes the body seriously as something in need of explanation and attention; it doesn't explain it away as a mere instrument of desire.

All our organs are fully functional except for our reproductive ones; they only fulfil their function in bodily union with the complementary kind - the natural fruit is - a child. The two become ONE both bodily in the act and in the new child. Everything depends on the proper ordering of this special relationship, for obvious reasons it is primary in the social order. It is called marriage and we are insane to pretend it is the equal of any other kind of relationship, it is a flight from reality into the fever-mind of a disembodied ego.

I suspect your definition of freedom, your morality, is just the fulfillment of the wants/desires of the "I" and who thinks the state as the tool to achieve it. No matter what the cost to Australia.

Kipp, as Prof. Deenen quoted; you have a moral philosophy dreamed up by childless men who have forgotten their childhood. Stop listening to a handful of academics, rejoin the human community. Let some love into your life. Yield to a life giving definition of love, not a frightened narrow poor souls' definition.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Friday, 5 August 2011 9:00:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo

Your religion and your interpretation of such, not all theologians agree with that view.

Men commit shameless acts all the time and they are not homosexual. They murder, they abuse, they bully, they torture, they steal, they rape - all these are heinous acts.

A couple of people of the same sex loving each other does not fit in with any act of shame.

You continue to force YOUR religion onto others, dictating how others should live, telling people not to love each other - this is a shameless act of intolerance and bigotry.
Posted by Ammonite, Friday, 5 August 2011 9:27:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ammonite what are you saying? you're telling committed orthodox Christians what Biblical morality is wrt homosexuality? Of course 'theologians' who have felt alienated from the Bible's teaching twist it out of all recognition - the same was done in order to justify slavery. No one is falling for it.

Just who is coercing who? New York has just abolished marriage as a matter of civil law and replaced it with a counterfeit that New Yorkers’ children and grandchildren will be taught to accept and approve as if it were the real thing. What New York now offers its citizens is “marriage” in name only. In reality, it doesn’t give marriage to same-sex partners — the nature of marriage makes that impossible, just as it makes it impossible to offer marriage to parties of three or more persons in polyamorous sexual partnerships. Rather, it takes away the legal recognition of marriage — a comprehensive union of persons ordered to having and rearing a family — and offers in its place legal recognition of a form of domestic partnership for romantic-sexual partners (in pairs for now, but that will not hold), be they same-sex or opposite-sex. [RPG]
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Friday, 5 August 2011 1:37:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why do extreme religous fundamentalists have such an intense interest in SEX, as sex is just a part of a relationship, not the total thing that two people commit too.
One of these extreme religous fundamentalists, went about killing innocent people in Norway, so how can your arguments or comments be taken seriously, when you have such indifference and disrespect for others, unless they live by your rules.
You live in a democracy, respect it and all its citizens, if you can"t
move to a country that rules by theocracy.
Posted by Kipp, Friday, 5 August 2011 5:59:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kipp I could be forgiven for thinking you were a plant to make your people look even more deranged.

Is it 'democratic' to deliberately deny a child its mum or dad? Not simply because of tragic circumstances, but to deliberately plan that deprivation? It may suit the adults for whatever reason, but is it fair to the child?

People fall on different sides of debates about how to justly order our common life together. It is frustrating that everyone doesn't fall into line with what you want. You experience this as such an obvious evil that you believe only religious fundamentalism terrorism, unabombing hatred could be the cause.

Adolescent name calling is very common among homosexual marriage supporters. I don't think it is hard to explain why, narcissism and arrested psychosexual development is a predisposition to homosexual behaviour. All that is needed is to project this self loathing onto the order of western society itself as if it were the source of this alienation and you have the movements of homosexual 'marriage' summed up.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Saturday, 6 August 2011 11:57:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If fertile homosexuals (note identity by sex) wish to have children then let them marry the opposite gender and have them as nature designed. Not sponge on the public purse. Children are not objects of trade, or dolls of affection. They are persons in their own right and have need of affection from both mother and father. IVF was developed to assist infertile hetrosexual couples failing to conceive naturally. Not for fertile same sex partners to dote over.
Posted by Philo, Saturday, 6 August 2011 7:52:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ammonite,
Twisted reasoning will not change the facts that two people who love each other; does not a marriage make. I love my brothers and we give each other a hug as greeting - this does not constitute a marriage. No your homosexual relationship constitutes a basis of sexual perversion to show love. This is merely the base eros love of self gratification and not the deep love of ungratified sacrifice.
Posted by Philo, Saturday, 6 August 2011 8:02:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Martin it is you that is dictating how it should be, I and the greatest majority of people respect others, why can you not.
I repeat, a person of extreme fundmentalist religous belief killed many innocent people in Norway, how come we do not hear any condemnation from extreme "christian" believers!
There is a piece currently on OLO regarding this issue, by one of your lot re this heinous act, your contribution would make interesting reading
Posted by Kipp, Sunday, 7 August 2011 5:40:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo

I am talking about people who love each other. You are the one fixated on sex. Get your mind out of other people's bedrooms and consider the many facets of love. From parental love for their children, love for one's own parents, love for a friend, love for a sibling and, love for one's lover.

People wanting to commemorate their relationship formally are not about "base eros love of self gratification" as you so nastily termed same sex marriage.

You still seek to control the behaviour of others based upon your own prejudices.

@ Kipp

I think you have made an excellent point, there are more fundamentalist Christians faffing on about what homosexuals do, than on the other thread protesting mass murderer, Breivik.

Can some Christians ever get their snouts out of other people's bedrooms and deal with real problems?
Posted by Ammonite, Sunday, 7 August 2011 5:54:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ammonite,
The murder of the Youth in Norway was a criminal act now taken care of by the Norweigen Police - nothing you or I can do will change that. It's a red herring and not part of this discussion. The murderer was not following the teachings and attitudes of Christ - he deserves judgment and appropiate justice.

Kipp,
Why do you direct Martin and myself to leave this thread? Just because we hold socially responsible positions does not mean we are disrespectful of gays. I attended the funeral of a 42 year old family friend who died of AIDS last April, and my nurse at the clinic I attend is also gay. There is a difference between respect for people and socially responsible healthy acts
Posted by Philo, Sunday, 7 August 2011 7:20:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stezza,
Marriage is not a private arrangement, it is a public declaration registered by the Government.

The use of discrimination laws by the gay lobby with regard to the nature of a sexual union (marriage) is deceptive and misleading of gender reality.
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 9 August 2011 11:46:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kipp there you go again.

Not a word about why it might be wrong to use children like an accessory.

I'm not surprised, the culture thinks along those lines we kill them by the million in the womb, they're sexually abused more than ever before and can't even walk to school. That you accept the thinking that leads to this just means your a conformist and so crippled intellectually. Unable to argue under this disability, like a nervous twitch you resort to mindless ad hominems like 'bigot' 'fundamentalist' 'religious extremist' etc like a desperate incantation. 'Climate change denier' is used in a similar way to short circuit debate so as to reap political and cultural spoils.

And now you use Breviek? who said he didn't follow Jesus but was more a follower of Odin and liberal thinkers like JS Mill? who was a victim of liberal conceptions of the family that you are arguing for now? Any sane person can see he is more closely related to your world view than to Jesus Christ's!
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Tuesday, 9 August 2011 12:56:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is Ms Wong announcement of her pregnancy a support and belief in fatherless children, or a demonstration she now believes in virgin birth?
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 9 August 2011 7:13:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The primary purpose of the State keeping records of births deaths and marriages is to administer services to population. Which is the reason for the census. That two persons of the same sex live in the one house having sex is not a population issue; persons in the houshold having children is.
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 10 August 2011 9:19:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,
Notwithstanding the 64 year old man and his male partner who had a baby through a surrogate mother, and then had Lady Gaga as the godmother.

Is this becoming a human zoo?

While it can be debated whether or not homosexuality is natural or not, IVF and surrogacy is definitely not a part of the natural order.
Posted by vanna, Wednesday, 10 August 2011 9:06:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy