Kipp you write

'We fought WII to erase this type of dictatorship'

Ask the average digger and they would be disgusted by your perverse conclusion. I am sure men defending their lives for this country were doing so in order that we can have queer marriage. What an insult.

I was hoping that by posting first, we could begin a debate about the role the government plays in marriage, before the usual disintegration of the debate into pro/anti-homosexuality. However it was not to be so.

I think the reason why people seem to want the government involved is to push their own agenda, utilizing the government to force those that disagree to comply. Religious groups (and non-religious conservatives)want to use the government to enforce their belief that marriage is between a single man and a single woman, and others want the government to force all society to recognize that marriage can include two single people of the same sex. This will never work. Both sides cannot, and should not force the other to change what they believe in. The problem is, with both sides pressuring the government to do something, no-one is asking the government to go away and stay out of our lives.

My point is, is that the marriage act did not exist, then the community that runner belongs to could chose to only recognize the marriage of same sex, same religion, morally sound people who share the same views. On the other hand, if two people wish to marry but are not recognized by runners community, then they could go and join an community that does recognize their right to marry. This way runner et al is not forced to recognize anything they do not want to, and the two people can get married by a community that does recognize their relationship.

I can't see how this idea would be a problem to anybody who does not wish to enforce their own ideology onto society. I would like to debate this idea, and am happy for people with differing opinions/ideas to speak up on this.

The primary socialising unit in the community is the family, Stezza, so you can bet that all governments everywhere recognise the critical importance of marriage. And in democratic societies, you can also bet that the electorate uses its democratically elected governments to push its own agenda.

My perception of the electorates agenda, Stezza, is that while they are socially advanced enough to no longer consider homosexuality illegal, they just do not accept that homosexuality should have equal status with hetorosexual behaviour. I am willing to see that decided by referenda, are you?

Homosexuality may no longer be illegal, Stezza, but that should not be taken for social approval. For most people, it rates only just above incest, bestiality, bigamy, polygamy, and necrophilia.

Please don't give me any crap about "equality" or "Human Rights". If Human Rights legislation is only concerned aboutt he welfare of terrorists, criminals, illegal immigrants and despised minorities, then I could not give a stuff about "Human Rights". It a democracy, It is a human right for the majority to rule.

And in a democracy, just who is equal, or more equal, is decided by the electorate.

Most of the Australian electorate wants the sanctity of marriage preserved. This whole exercise by the homosexual community is simply an attempt by them to force the community to grant them social approval. But the more you try to force that on us, the more the rest of the population will get hostile to homosexuals, and to any politician or political party who supports them.

Lego, you are missing the point.

First you discuss the importance of family, do you think that families would not exist if it wasn't for government? You need to understand that the government doesn't need to regulate families. They were doing fine before government intervention, and will be fine after. Would you like the government to regulate how many children you can have? How much time you spend with your wife/kids? Perhaps banning divorce to keep the family unit together? How would your family be different if the government didn't approve? You see, family life has nothing to do with the government. It is time they stayed out of our lives.

Second, it is obvious that you don't approve of homosexual activity. I will ignore your opinions on this, as your approval is neither wanted or relevant. The government cannot force anyone to approve of anything, nor should it try. Oppression is oppression, no matter if it is by a dictator or the masses.

You have not given any reason why the government should regulate marriage, other than you don't approve of homosexuality. This my friend is an attempt to enforce your own ideology onto society.

Greeting Stezza.

The State has always “interfered” with family matters, Stezza. The legalities of marriage, common law marriage, polygamy, divorce, contraception, child maintenance, child access, inheritance, paternity, estate separation, and a host of other family related matters have always been considered by lawmakers,in every conceivable type of government. I think that never before has the family unit been under so much stress, today’s family bears little relation to the past, where three or more generations lived within the same abode, with someone always around to watch the kids. Children are increasingly being raised by one parent families, while the care of children today is being “outsourced’ to day care centres, nurseries, nannies, boarding schools, and psychiatric hospitals.

It is not in the interests of governments anywhere to allow this essential institution to be weakened further by allowing the homosexual lobby to use it for their own purposes. And yes, I think the time is fast approaching when responsible governments everywhere will limit the numbers of children a family may have, in the interests of the entire human race.

My attitude to homosexuality is liberal. I do not think that homosexuality should be illegal, but that could change if the homosexual lobby continues to attack the family unit. What most annoys me about homosexuals, is that they use their position within the media to constantly attack families by targeting our children with anti social and anti family values.

Kipp,

I could say, “Can anyone give a reason for gay marriage other than ‘It’s yours and I want it too”? But I will explain it again.

Marriage is not a thing that gays want. It is a thing that they most definitely do not want. What they want is something else and for the something else to be called “marriage”, which would then deprive the language of a meaning - the exclusive and life-long union of one man and one woman. No word would remain to describe that particular state. Marriage in our society is not the exclusive and life-long union of one man and another man, or of one woman and another woman, or of one man and three women or of one woman and three men or of two men and five women. When the federal parliament was granted power over marriage, it did not include the power to redefine the word. The power granted is over the exclusive and life-long union of one man and one woman. If the federal parliament can redefine the words in its constitutional list of powers any way it feels like, there would be no stopping it taking over every area just by redefinition. A train is not a bus. An apple is not a tomato. Red is not green.