Fabulous, isn't it? You bash, persecute and abuse a minority group into misery and despair for hundreds of years, then you abuse them for not living as long as other people! What's the average lifespan of Aboriginal people, Alan? Do you think we should deny them some basic human rights until they get their act together and live as long as whites? Man up, you slackers! Hold on, though -- men as a group get sicker than women, and don't live as long. Maybe we should stop all men from getting married -- that will fix them!

Even assuming the research you reference is properly done and the results are accurate -- which I frankly find hard to believe -- so what? When did differential life expectancies become a reason to discriminate?

It seems to me that the gay community is really trying to shoot the messenger and is not at all interested in the message. I don't suppose that the incidence of HIV/AIDS in the male homosexual community would have any effect on their life expectancy, would it, eh!! It is about time some people out there got their heads out of the sand. If you want to engage in unprotected sex with multiple partners, then you have to accept the consequences and that also applies to the heterosexual community as well.

I might also say that if same sex couples want to get married then that is OK with me. Contrarily, if heterosexual couples wish to not get married then that is also OK.

David

In this article Canadian information is used to support the arguments. In the Canadian item to which a link was provided I found the following;

"In 2001, a literature review sponsored by the Gay and Lesbian Health Services in Saskatoon estimated the economic cost of homophobia in Canada to be as high as $8 billion a year. A 2003 literature review estimated that as many 5,481 GLB Canadians die prematurely each year as a direct result of homophobia."

Doesn't that suggest that the homophobes, who include the various church leaders prominent in this issue, have played a substantial role in causing a large number of early deaths world wide.

The truth is complicated by the suicide rate of young men between 15 and 24, the highest demographic of all. As Jon said, you bash and persecute a minority for millennia; and then wonder why the emerging gay community, confused by their physical responses, are driven to despair; by the life of endless homophobia and misery, that awaits them!
Made even worse by incorrigible homophobes, who arguably number amongst the most ignorant people on the planet; and or, simply psychos getting their jollies hurting others?
If one understood just how much pain and suffering is visited on the gay community, by former family and friends even, one would know that this is never ever a matter of choice, any more than haemophilia is a matter of choice!
And while we are on the subject of life expectancy?
Did you know that just prior to 1986, there were 142 registered haemophiliacs in Australia? And that all of them have since died of medically acquired aids.
Even so, Christian fundamentalists merely masquerading as genuinely empathetic health professionals, see it as their holy duty to deny all aids suffers quality health care?
Given a view that as inherently evil persons, made ill by self inflicted means or unsafe sex, first class medicine, or clinical aids treatment, can be ethically denied?
It is quite difficult to acquire aids.
Even the spouses of the aforementioned medically infected haemophiliacs, remained largely unaffected in the early years of the disease, with only around 14% recorded spousal infections; even where unsafe sex was standard practise between married couples, possibly hoping in their blissful ignorance, to create a family?
Why blissfully ignorant?
Well, so-called health professionals withheld/withhold critical information, for reasons of "patient privacy" issues?
Perhaps we could seriously extend the life expectancies of homosexuals, by simply giving them critical, timely, quality information, about their real health outcomes, combined with quality medicine.
Apparently, there are around a million "known" aids suffers in the USA alone? That each one of these suffers, spends on average, thirty thousand PA, on medicine?
And, $30,000,000,000.00 reasons to avoid a cure?
Rhrosty.

As memory serves, Canadian researchers recorded the first serious mutations of HIV/aids?
Meaning, that a disease formerly treatable by a known spectrum of anti virals, became untreatable; and like galloping consumption, very rapidly overwhelmed and killed the victims!
Because of this disease's ability to constantly mutate and produce far more virulent varieties, we now have no choice, but to focus on a cure!
It seems there may be some promise of a cure, in a combination of leukaemia chemotherapy, and an equally well known arthritis medication.
Given both of these drugs are in relatively common use already, there is no requirement for FDA or similar board approvals, for their clinical use?
Apparently the leukaemia treatment destroys the aids virus in all its current mutations; and in all its often hidden locations, but only in doses, usually lethal for the patient?
Reportedly, the addition of the Arthritis medication seems to make the chemotherapeutic far more efficacious? [By seemingly obliging the virus to emerge back into the blood stream, where it can be successfully attacked?]
Allowing far less toxic chemo doses to be administered, with apparent success and significant survival rates, particularly where applied, when general health is still relatively robust?
A comparatively good outcome; given, the acquisition of the disease, is a virtual death sentence!
Albeit, deferred downstream, for a double decade and beyond, by antivirals?
Rhrosty.

A smoker is a drug addict. He or she merely has to decide to give up the drug and become a non-smoker. A gay person isn't a drug addict. They are gay because that is the way they are.

When somebody compares smoking to being gay they are implying that the gay person has the same choice as a smoker. Gays don't have that choice. That is why it is homophobic to compare smoking to being gay.

Gay activists do their best to stop any publicity that weakens their cause.
However, it is in everyone's interest to make known the facts on homosexual health.For example, cancer facts for gay and bisexual men are discussed on the following websites:
http://www.cancer.org/Healthy/FindCancerEarly/MensHealth/cancer-facts-for-gay-and-bisexual-men
and
http://ari.ucsf.edu/science/s2c/anal.pdf

A USA medical transcriptionist has given the following account of cases she has documented over some 20 years:

" What disturbs me most is the extreme disconnect between what you hear and see in media and in movies, and what children are taught in schools, and what real-life, indisputable medical reports prove. For purposes of this article, we’ll deal with the horrifying physical and emotional maladies and domestic abuse that takes place amongst practicing homosexuals. These patients are seen in all aspects of hospital care including emergency rooms, mental health units, rehabilitation units, surgery and clinics.

Because of privacy issues, I cannot cite the specific contents of the actual medical reports I have transcribed – but the following are some general examples of what they reveal:

• Gay-on-Gay Assaults are at the hands of their same-sex domestic partners (not “hate crimes”) and are repetitive. (Reading details of the beatings is highly disturbing.);
• Besides the many patients with HIV/AIDS, extremely common conditions are patients with penile lesions, testicle swelling and epididymitis*, anal warts, anal lesions, anal tearing, anal scarring, perirectal fistulas, external hemorrhoids with recurrent bleeding and anal abscesses, requiring surgeries such as colectomy, colostomy and colorectal surgery.
• Some have rectal cancer (anal cancer).
• Many have substance abuse problems and the resultant psychiatric disorders, depression, suicidality.
• Anal Laxity: From my work I have learned that repeated sodomy (or anal sex) results in a condition called anal laxity (looseness) that requires surgery or a colostomy bag in order for the bowels to function properly.

The questions that continue to run through my mind each time I type one of these situations arising from homosexuality are: “How can this be an act of love between two people?” and “Why are those who speak out against this damaging behavior vilified as intolerant haters?”
(Source: http://americansfortruth.com/2012/02/19/medical-records-reveal-diseases-and-maladies-associated-with-gay-sex-and-homosexual-behavior/#more-10911)

Interesting fact: a number of studies have shown that left-handed people have lower life expectancy than us right-handed people. Obviously we should try to stamp out this sinister scourge by forcing lefties to use their right hands. And if we can't do that then at the very least we should persecute them and make them feel ashamed for being-left handed in the hope that this will turn them right-handed. It's in their own best interests.

Cheers,

Tony

Interesting and perceptive comments. Thank you.

Yes, Jon J, Indigenous life expectancy is lower than for the non-Indigenous population. Some of the factors affecting gay people would seem to apply. Other minorities also experience diminished longevity.

Incidentally, I know you were joking about men v women, but it is true that married men live longer than unmarried men. Is this another argument in favour of gay marriage?

Raycom, if your observations regarding health are true, what do you regard as contributing factors to these outcomes?
And what are appropriate responses?

Would you agree these are contributors to illnesses among gay people:

. Multiple sexual partners
. Reluctance to seek treatment out of embarrassment or fear
. Lack of health insurance cover for unmarried partners
. Stress resulting from marginalisation contributing to anxiety
. Stress resulting from marginalisation leading to smoking addiction
. Continual denigration leading to self-loathing and despair
. Absence of a committed, caring partner

If these are factors, would you agree that same-sex marriage would be a therapeutic response?

Cheers, AA

Intruiging. The author has frequently contributed articles here supporting gay marriage and decrying the role of fundamentalist Christians. He and I had a discussion about the accuracy of the Canadian study. My suspicion is that gay mortality rates are probably impacted by the AIDS epidemic, but that nowadays they may be more or less in line with the general population. I think he probably has reservations too.

But because he writes a piece suggesting we all need to stand back and discuss the issues of homosexuality using facts, he is attacked from both sides of the debate.

If anyone was well-placed to start a discussion in this area, I thought Alan would be the person. Perhaps such a discussion is not possible.

AA
The choice of engaging in a homosexually active lifestyle is the contributing factor to the identified outcomes.

In all seriousness, socalled same-sex marriage would not be a therapeutic response for the factors you mention.

Gay activists don't have a cause per se to mount. They are just sick and tired of being eternally persecuted by the abysmally Ignorant! That is why they are now promulgating their evidence and factual documentation?
If a gentle, kind and compassionate Jesus walked amongst us today, with his history or caring and sharing; and his apparent almost exclusive preference for male companions?
Many posters, would label him as Gay? And perhaps, the principle reason for his persecution/crucifixion?
Not that much has changed, with our universal education and so-called civilisation?
["So as you act towards the least amongst you, so also do you act unto me!" And, "let those without sin cast the first stone."]
It seems to me many are simply hell bent on trying to justify their completely unjustifiable behaviour or unchristian homophobic persecution?
Science demands we look at and evaluate the evidence, all of it!
Rather than relatively rare and subjectively leaked case histories, that may well be limited to male prostitution; and in my view, obviously promulgated, without the knowledge or consent of wilfully ignored patients'; and or, their rights?
Moreover, how is it possible to objectively distinguish between males serially abused by paedophile priests and or genuinely gay, male prostitutes, from an ill-informed/uninformed/entirely assumptive reading of obviously unsubstantiated private medical or "counterfeit/name changed" records?
Female prostitutes or abuse victims, may well have a similar or a larger history of numerous lower abdomen problems, which could include conditions like STD's, piles, yeast infections and prolapsed wombs, that also need remedial surgical/medical intervention.
There are none so blind---.
Perhaps we could prevent many of the problems presented, by a more liberal interpretation/application of medically assisted gender reassignment?
This would create another orifice, that would seem to Fit more closely, with traditional love making requirements.
Failing that, what other choice do sexually active gays have? Celibacy induced psychosis perhaps, so obvious amongst older or retired, still single clergy or "Nuns"?
My only advice would be, regardless of gender bias, is to always always, engage only in safe sex.
Anything else is none of my business or yours!
Rhrosty.

Graham,
The real question here is, "Is it possible to either encourage or discourage homosexuality?" the ACL spokesperson believes that education should be used to discourage children from taking up homosexuality, I disagree, that's akin to trying to talk someone out of taking up cystic fibrosis. The idea is laughable, homosexuality is a physical condition which some people manage to the extent that they lead successful lives and which others succumb to and die, just like some people manage their depression and others commit suicide.
The fact is that no parent would want their child to be homosexual,homosexuality is something that people just have to deal with in their lives, it's natural in the sense that myopia or autism are natural but it isn't "normal" and it's not a desired trait in a child or for that matter an adult. There is no real acceptance of homosexuality just a range of responses ranging from empathy to antipathy, personally I do agree with Rev' Jensen's point on compassion for those less fortunate or those afflicted with conditions over which they have no control .

John J,
Oh come on, be fair, we hear all this nonsense about "Bashing, burning and hanging" but never any actual evidence, come up with some actual cases, then prove a widespread pattern and you'll look less of a bitter crank.
You take this "persecution" as an article of faith but like all Liberation myths it's blown way out of proportion.
Examples: How many Black people were lynched by Whites in the U.S.A? Wikipedia gives a figure of about 2500 cases between the 1880's and 1968, by contrast Blacks murder about 450 Whites every single year in that country, twice the number of White on Black murders.
How many people were killed by the government in the 40 plus years of Apartheid? About 7,500 is the generally agreed upon figure including by military operations in other countries such as Angola, the ANC however is accused of killing over 14.000 people in the same time period.
You like to think of Gays as a "persecuted" group bu the reality is that if you view them as a standalone community they export more crime to the rest of society than they are subjected to, some simple googling can demonstrate this conclusion. Even down to simple everyday crimes like drunk driving and drug possession, Gays are far more likely to commit crimes compared to society as a whole.

I can't see why some are getting their – or other's – knickers in a twist… It's not as though Alan Austin was citing or giving credit to the fatally compromised 'data' from the American Colorado Spring's Family Research Institute.

What is missing is a breadth of rigourous and statistically valid epidemiological studies.

Scientifically there is nothing in same-sex attraction that is inherently unhealthy. Behaviours that put human health at risk impact equally on heterosexuals.

Statistics involving youth suicide need to be considered separately from general health studies. The externalities of social, family and peer pressures and their contribution to depression and its consequences require a different analysis of causality.

Alan, the old joke may go some way to explaining the question of married men living longer… It's relativistic; it's not that they live longer, it's just that their living hell feels like it will last an eternity.

Then again, maybe it just reflects the importance of emotional companionship?

Jay of Melbourne now is the time to put your money were your mouth is, and post valid documented evidence that Gays are not persecuted and contribute to crime in society.
You may dislike gays or even hate them, but there for the grace of god go thee!

Kipp,
I'm not the one making allegations, It's not my responsibility to provide evidence to back a statement offered by someone else and of which I'm skeptical.
I suggested that due to the fact that these foundation myths of Liberation movements are always grossly exaggerated and fall apart under scrutiny that the mantra of historical Gay "persecution" is really a belief rather than a set of facts. You guys IMAGINE a past where Gays were rounded up and burned at the stake because you strongly empathise with minority groups, but in general you feel the same about Whales or battery hens, or the planet, or refugees, emotional responses and their resulting blind zealotry don't need "facts" to grip the imagination of one such as yourself.
Unfortunately the way pro Gay posters behave doesn't fill me with confidence that they really know what they're talking about, when you get angry and start using words like "Hate" it's a sure sign that you have no solid case to put forward or that you lack self confidence.
If you read my posts I'm mostly playing devil's advocate but neutrality can be aggressive too in the sense that objectivity and emotional detachment tend to highlight contradictions and hypocrisy.

Intriguing discussion. Thank you.

@GrahamY: Yes, I‘ve reservations about the Canadian research. Concur with your comments.

Reference in this article was to affirm Jim Wallace had at least quoted a document from a reputable gay group, and done so accurately.

His analysis, however, and that of Dr Jensen and others, of the underlying factors is inadequate. Hence also are their proposed remedies inadequate.

@Raycom: Re “The choice of engaging in a homosexually active lifestyle is the contributing factor to the identified outcomes.”

Yes, on one level perhaps. But what choices are there?

Do you believe we all get choose our sexual attraction? This is now virtually completely discredited. Just this week prominent “gay cure” leader John Smid was in the news again reaffirming that reorientation therapy just doesn’t work.

Or are you of the current Catholic view that orientation is fixed but gay people must remain celebate?

Raycom, the experience here in Europe, where several countries have had gay marriage for years, is that gay and lesbian couples who opt for faithful marriage have the same health profile as opposite-sex married couples.

Yes, anal sex has inherent risks. But so does vaginal and oral sex. WmTrevor is right.

@Rhosty: You are right too. (I keep saying that.)

Was Jesus gay? Some scholars believe He was in a relationship with one of his disciples. John pointed to this, they claim, by repeating “the disciple whom Jesus loved”. Some see indicators in OT prophecies that Jesus would have been gay.

Not enough evidence either way, however, for me.

@Jay of Melbourne: Re “There is no real acceptance of homosexuality just a range of responses ranging from empathy to antipathy”

Yes, that seems to be the case in Australia at the moment. But are we stuck with this?

With education and awareness, is it possible for the community to embrace same-sex marriage in the same way we now accept interracial marriages – which were once taboo (Genesis 24:37-38).

Regarding persecution of gays, Jay, are you familiar with Christian movements like the push for the death penalty in Africa, or Westboro Baptist Church?

I always wonder why most comments seem completely oblivious to the existence of gay women. It seems 99% of arguments seem to revolve around gay men and anal sex. As a scientist, the data I would like to see is a comparison of health between;
1. homosexual men
2. homosexual women
3. heterosexual men
4. heterosexual women
Divided between those in monogamous relationships, and those with multiple sex partners.

I believe this would answer questions regarding the effect of different lifestyles on health outcomes.

I hypothesize that factors contributing to poor health outcomes will include promiscuity/multiple sex partners, discrimination and unsafe sex. If this is the case then promoting monogamous relationships, anti-discrimination, and safe-sex should improve outcomes for all of the community. My only question then is why are church groups not doing this already?

They are gay because that is the way they are.
Wattle,
I can accept that. Can you accept then that heterosexuals are simply the way they are & part of that is being against homosexuality ? Do you then also accept any other group i.e. sadists, kleptomaniacs, arsonists etc. etc. because that's the way they are ?
If we let people do what they want to do because the way they are then why are we fighting crime & terrorism etc.? If a heterosexual has no water to wash themselves after an intimate encounter he can still sit next to you & you wouldn't know. Try that with a homo$exual.

...The debate on health aspects and prevalence, or even causes known or unknown, legitimising or explaining-away homosexuality, do not obviate the imperative of resistance to legitimising the open practice of homosexuality, that homosexual marriage does to its cause.

...Homosexual marriage is strictly a social issue, and does not question the prevalence of the homosexual act, but simply attempts to point out the act of homosexuality as "not existing within the accepted norm of society", and as a consequence, should not be officially accepted and legitimised by homosexual marriage rights.

...Simply put, homosexuality is an anti-social act not deserving of "State” recognition through changes to long held traditions of the existing marriage act.

Alan Austin,
Thanks for replying, I personally cannot come up with a valid argument why or why not homosexuals should marry, homosexuality may be dangerous but I don't want to live in a society where the state intervenes on every level to stop "bad" things from happening. Homosexuality is not something I'd want for my children but I'd deal with it if and when became an issue it, as a teetotaller I'm not crazy about people who binge drink at put themselves at risk either so I warn my kids about drinking or getting into cars with people who've had a few. I think the focus of the dangerous aspects of being homosexual has been drawn into the realm of personal taste in this series of posts, it's not just gay sex which is risky, just being part of "Gay Life" is dangerous. Fifteen years ago I was a heavy drinker and drug user and had many homosexual drug buddies in that "underground", so I do know a lot about the criminal aspect of Gay life and outsider cultures generally.There is a need to talk to kids about getting caught up with a dangerous sub culture, "Gay culture" is risky even for non gays who choose to associate with them, anyone who's been to Gay nightclubs knows about the violence, the drugs and the low life elements who congregate in that scene. Years ago I was mistakenly targeted by thugs (and Police) for gay bashings, another straight friend of mine was hospitalised by hoodlums after they jumped him leaving the Bassline nightclub in Melbourne, yet another was injured in a fight with a group of Gays outside Three Faces in South Yarra. I also saw some pretty intense brawls between Lesbians, one night at the Rochester in Fitzroy two groups of girls went at it with pool cues, chairs and glasse were thrown, it's a dangerous lifestyle, being an outsider it always struck me as more dangerous than being around exclusively straight people.

I think that the research quoted is very probably highly flawed. It was produced by a lobby group trying to claim victimhood for their group and therefore looking for worst cases. A decrease in life expectancy of 20 years is huge. It requires a lot of people to die very young given that we know many gays will live to quite happy old ages (Michael Kirby shows no signs of slowing up and he is 73). The only mathematically coherent I explanation I can see is the AIDS epidemic which took out many gay men in their 20s, as well as older men. None of the other explanations could have affected nearly enough people to have this effect.

Stezza, church groups have played huge roles in ministering to the health etc. needs of gay people. My co-panellist on ABC radio's in Brisbane on a Friday morning Janine Walker told me an interesting anecdote last Friday that in the 80s she was on the AIDS Council representing Queensland. Gays in Queensland had particular problems because the Premier didn't believe they existed in Queensland (apparently). She got the gig because she wasn't gay, and because she was female as that shielded them to some extent.

Because of the government opposition the only way they could get funding for the Queensland AIDS Council was to funnel it through the Mater Hospital, where the Sisters of Mercy passed it on to them.

a valid argument why or why not homosexuals should marry,
Jay of Melbourne,
Well,we do let criminals get married in prison but I have not heard of homosexuals doing that. Enlighten us please. Anyhow, as I have stated on several occasions I could not give a hoot what homosexuals do in their time amongst themselves & with each other or to themselves or whatever.
The issue is marriage or rather the word of it. Heterosexuals get married, that's our word. Homosexuals can have a legal union in my book but, BUT do not use our word for it, call it something else. It's like Christianity vs Islam, they all believe in one supreme being but they call it different names because they believe in that difference. You see the operative word here is not marriage it's difference.

individual,

"...that's our word..."

Sorry, mate, words are not entities that can be "owned" - they are subject to evolution of meaning, dictated by social mores.

Poirot,
I'm sorry but your defensive argument is water off a duck's back in my book. Just look at what happened or rather what you lot did to a word which harmlessly described a just as harmless state of either one's feeling or a group ? The word gay ! It meant lightheartedness & feeling unencumbered. You lot hijacked it & claimed yes, claimed it as yes again, "your" word.
You really should feel a tad hypocritical.

individual,

Words are not entities that can be "hijacked"...they are subject to evolution of meaning, dictated by social mores.

they are subject to evolution of meaning, dictated by social mores.
Poirot,
Yes, that is an extremely convenient way to talk one's way out of it. That's why history gets so distorted, especially when academics interpret it. The sad thing is that many succinct descriptions now require endless gobbledegook to describe things, events & people. This gobbledegook, invented by academia is what enables callous & devoid of integrity lawyers to persecute decent folk. Some politicians make use of it also.

Individual, to help you be informed, Google "Original meaning of the word Gay"

I believe that Individual is right and that Poirot is missing the point. Supporters of gay "marriage" are cannot argue that the meaning of "marriage" has already evolved; they are actually agitating for its meaning to be changed by legislation — for a new meaning to be foisted on all of us by decree.

Consider two related questions: (a) Should same sex couples have the same legal rights as traditional married couples including the right to call their relationship a marriage? (b) Should same sex couples have the same legal rights as traditional married couples provided that they use a word other than "marriage" to describe their relationship? I suspect that a huge majority would assent to (b) but that there would be no majority for (a). If this proved to be true, you could argue that the meaning of "marriage" has already evolved to include same sex relationships, or is likely to any time soon.
I'm sure that most people still regard a homosexual relationship as categorically different from a heterosexual one. Not inferior, not less acceptable — just different. And it's linguistically convenient to have different words to indicate categorically different things. We would strongly oppose any suggestion to drop the distinction between "son" and "daughter" — to argue that we might just as well call all our offspring "sons" because male and female children are, after all, of equal worth. The argument for retaining different category words for homosexual and heterosexual relationships is not as strong as it is for male and female offspring, but to many it's still pretty strong.

It's important, too, to note that the opposition of many Australians to changing the meaning of "marriage" has nothing to do with religion or any other kind of folk lore or myth; it's entirely to do with concern for our language.

Revised post to fix a couple of errors:

I believe that Individual is right and that Poirot is missing the point. Supporters of gay marriage cannot argue that the meaning of "marriage" has already evolved; they are actually agitating for its meaning to be changed by legislation — for a new meaning to be foisted on all of us by decree.

Consider two related questions:
(a) Should same sex couples have the same legal rights as traditional married couples including the right to call their relationship a marriage?
(b) Should same sex couples have the same legal rights as traditional married couples provided that they use a word other than "marriage" to describe their relationship?

I suspect that a huge majority would assent to (b) but that there would be no majority for (a). If this proved to be true, you could not argue that the meaning of "marriage" has already evolved to include same sex relationships, or is likely to any time soon.

I'm sure that most people still regard a homosexual relationship as categorically different from a heterosexual one. Not inferior, not less acceptable — just different. And it's linguistically convenient to have different words to indicate categorically different things. We would strongly oppose any suggestion to drop the distinction between "son" and "daughter" — to argue that we might just as well call all our offspring "sons" — because male and female children are, after all, of equal worth. The argument for retaining different category words for homosexual and heterosexual relationships is not as strong as it is for male and female offspring, but to many it's still pretty strong.

It's important, too, to note that the opposition of many Australians to changing the meaning of "marriage" has nothing to do with religion or any other kind of folk lore or myth; it's entirely to do with concern for our language.

Glen C,

This is about a conferred legitimacy upon a (social) state of union between consenting adults.

Your "sons" and "daughters" example is interesting.

Sons (male) are different from daughters( female).

How does it follow that the "legitimised union/marriage" of homosexuals differs from a "legitimised union/marriage" of heterosexuals?

The legitimised union or "marriage" of either is merely that - there is no "difference".

The "meaning" of marriage is not being changed - merely extended.

Since we're indulging in semantics....

Excellent discussion – mostly. Thanks all.

@Jay: intriguing recollections. Much appreciated.

A quibble could be with 'gay life' or 'gay culture'. Do you accept that there’s a wide range of gay lifestyles?

I’m thinking of young Christian writer/activist Matthew Vines. And of Zach Wahls’ family in Ohio. (Both viral, easily googled.) These lifestyles are in a different moral universe from the dangerous underground of which you vividly write.

@individual, diver dan and Raycom:

I suspect we are all using the term ‘homosexuality’ quite differently.

It’s perhaps late to say this, but the word has many different applications, doesn't it? So unless we mean the entire sphere of sexual nature, experiences, lifestyles, scientific research, social analysis and theological reflection, it is probably better to use other terms.

To illustrate, which of these same-sex activities do you mean when you use 'homosexuality':

* small boys in the bath playing with their willies
* same-sex adolescents masturbating together
* sportsmen slapping each other on the bum
* sportsmen and women showering naked together
* natural same-sex sexual orientation
* occasional fleeting homoerotic fantasies
* faithful, monogamous, life-long same-sex unions
* married adults going to gay bars for casual sex
* men paying boys or other men for sex
* wild drunken sex with strangers at gay bars
* adults sexually abusing vulnerable children in their care
* weird sex in Satanic rituals
* homosexual gang rape

Pretty sure you’re not referring to all of them. So would be good to specify. At minimum, please differentiate between orientation and behaviour.

@GlenC: Re “Supporters of gay marriage are actually agitating for its meaning [marriage] to be changed by legislation — for a new meaning to be foisted on us all.”

Not really, Glenn. The opposite, in fact. Legislation was foisted on Australians in 2004 when the definition in federal legislation was changed to exclude gay couples. Marriage equality advocates would be happy to reverse this and have the government but out.

Answers to your questions:

(a) yes, and (b) they have that already but it seems unnecessary and still implies a lesser status.

Cheers, AA

AA wrote: "Not really, Glenn (sic). The opposite, in fact. Legislation was foisted on Australians in 2004 when the definition in federal legislation was changed to exclude gay couples. Marriage equality advocates would be happy to reverse this and have the government but out."

AA, I think you are really being disingenuous here, Tricky, actually. I'm responding to the optimistic claim that the meaning of "marriage" has already evolved to embrace same-sex relationships. Perhaps a large majority of people will come to regard same-sex relationships as being no different from two-sex relationships, but they haven't yet.

Your assertion that we had foisted upon us in 2004 a legal requirement to stop accepting gay couples as married in the normal sense implies that we had always regarded gay couples as no different from heterosexual couples. That's bizarre. The 2004 act might have foisted upon us a legal requirement to accept that "marriage" meant what the parliament said it meant. It certainly did not impose on the majority of us a legal requirement to change what we had always assumed "marriage" to mean. In fact, it confirmed that, legally, the word meant what we had long taken it to mean; what it had long ago evolved to mean.

Now, supporters of gay marriage are asking the parliament to force us to replace the evolved meaning of a word with a legislated one. Most Australians are comfortable with the idea of same sex couples having all the legal rights of traditional married couples but it seems reasonable to expect sex couples to coin their own word to connote that relationship, at least as a temporary measure. It could be tactically smart for them to do so; to bide their time until "marriage" evolves to encompass same sex as well as traditional couples. If the word does so evolve, they will have made their point and won the day without rancour. If it doesn't, they might have to accept that, linguistically, there was no point to be made.

Im a gay man. Now in the early 1980s during the aids/HIV epidemic when a gay person was diagnosed with aids we generally expected to die in under five years, and many did. Now most of the studies that people are using as evidence that we gay men die earlier then heterosexuals on average comes from studies conducted during the 1980s when the aids/HIV epidemic was at it's height. Today's gay men live healthy lives, and we do not expect to die earlier then the average heterosexual male. What's offends us gay people is when people use thirty or forty year old studies as evidence to justify there discrimination today against us gays and lesbians. It would have been good if the author of this opinion piece had actually stated a plan, and how he would improve the overall health of gay people - such as the extremely high gay teen suicide rate in Australia. The truth is that the author of this opinion does not really care about the average gay persons health, otherwise he would not have used years old outdated studies when we could have easily chosen recent studies of gay men's health.

Gay marriage 'improves health'

Legalising same-sex marriage may create a healthier environment for gay men, say US researchers.

The number of visits by gay men to health clinics dropped significantly after same-sex unions were allowed in the state Massachusetts.

This was regardless of whether the men were in a stable relationship, reported the American Journal of Public Health.

A UK charity said there was a clear link between happiness and health.

Research has already suggested that gay men are more likely to suffer from depression and suicidal thoughts than heterosexual men, and that social exclusion may be partly responsible.

FROM: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16203621

Hi again Glen,

First up, apologies for the misspelling. Saw it too late. Sorry!

Pretty sure we are in accord mostly.

Re: “Perhaps a large majority of people will come to regard same-sex relationships as being no different from two-sex relationships, but they haven't yet.”

Depends where, Glen. They have in parts of Europe. From what I read, it’s close to a majority Downunder. Though not large yet.

Re: “Your assertion that we had foisted upon us in 2004 a legal requirement to stop accepting gay couples as married in the normal sense implies that we had always regarded gay couples as no different from heterosexual couples.”

Hmmm. Well, certainly wasn’t the intended inference, Glen. Just noted that legislation pre-2004 actually did permit same-sex marriage. The Howard Government legislated to prohibit it. Certainly, back then, fewer people supported same-sex marriage than now.

Re: “In fact, it confirmed that, legally, the word meant what we had long taken it to mean; what it had long ago evolved to mean.“

Yes, perhaps, Glen. But how long ago? M1W1 marriage is actually quite recent, historians tell us.

Hi Jason. Thanks for joining us.

Pretty sure you have nailed precisely the problems with most research published to date – as noted by GrahamY and others, above.

Re: “It would have been good if the author of this opinion piece had actually stated a plan [to] improve the overall health of gay people - such as the extremely high gay teen suicide rate in Australia.”

Agree with this absolutely, Jason. I hope to do something directly on this soon. Just waiting for the final verdict on that notorious Regnerus study from the University of Texas.

Meanwhile, Jason, if you get a chance to read other contributions here on same-sex unions, you’ll probably get the drift of my plan – to have all same-sex behaviour and relationships treated exactly the same as opposite-sex behaviour and relationships.

Agree with your observations from Massachusetts. Same in California, I believe. Same here in Europe I know for certain.

Thanks for the BBC link, Jason. Excellent.

Cheers, AA

...Well AA, I always avoid going down “baited trails; which is the open door into the room containing the "evil thirteen" list, from which you factiously beckon, it appears to me. Your attempt to demean the opposition is a failure!

AA, I was about to say that "foisted" was your word and I was merely responding to its aggressiveness but a quick check back suggests otherwise. Ouch!

If, as you say, same sex marriage used to be sort-of legal by default in that no pre-2004 legislation actually ruled that it wasn't, I hadn't appreciated that. But I still need to take issue with your statement: "Legislation was foisted on Australians in 2004 when the definition in federal legislation was changed to exclude gay couples." Even if that statement is true, it's misleading. I wasn't referring to the traditional legal meaning of "marriage" but the meaning that it was commonly believed to have by me and the rest of the great unwashed. I think your statement can be read to imply that in 2004, we had foisted upon us a requirement to change what we believed and the way we spoke. I insist that 2004 actually confirmed, not changed, the meaning we had long assumed "marriage" to have. Perhaps I inferred something from your statement that you had not meant to imply.

You question about how long is a "long time" is easy to answer from my standpoint — it's as long as I can remember (and if our mean entitlement is really four score and ten, I'm already on an overdraft). Further, for almost all of us — I'm thinking 99% plus —"marriage" has meant traditional M1W1 coupling for the entirety of our remembered lives. When appraising the effect of a forced meaning change on us, what the word might have meant centuries ago is irrelevant.

In short, you are asking a lot of us when you expect us to make a categorical change in what a sensitive word means, especially when, for most of us, that change is the only part of the gay marriage log of demands that we baulk at.

How hard would it be to come up with another name for same-sex "marriage" and go with it until the meaning of "marriage" does evolve, as you optimistically suggest it already has?

Thanks for response Alan Austin,

It's often very difficult to have a discussion on homosexuality online, as people have formed a set opinion on homosexuality in there mind. Deep down they know that there views on homosexuality are wrong, yet they need justification for there discriminatory actions towards gays and lesbians - so when you start to have a discussion on homosexuality they quickly become hostile and often abusive towards others (especially gays) because they know that there bigotted views on homosexuality is about to be proven false and shown for what they exactly are, misleading lies. For example you have people claiming that it says in the bible that Jesus was against gay marriage, and you even have some that claim gay people cause earthquakes: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7255657.stm or that we gays cause hurricanes: http://www.advocate.com/politics/religion/2012/08/31/gays-get-blame-hurricane-isaac

AA, me again. I meant to question your statement, "Certainly, back then, fewer people supported same-sex marriage than now" but ran foul of the limit on the number of posts per topic in a 24 hour period.

At the risk of repeating myself boringly, I think that all you can say from opinion polls and the like is that most Australians support the rights of same-sex couple to have access to legally protected marriage-like relationship contracts. I'm not aware that any research specifically establishes that most Australians are also happy for those contracts to be called "marriage".

When, as in your statement above, you leave unqualified statements that most Australians now support gay marriage, you are implying that most Australians support having the meaning of "marriage" changed by law. If there is evidence to support this implication, please put it on display. Being a sceptic, I'll support propositions for which there is credible, replicable evidence.

But if there is no such evidence, same sex marriage activists should stop using language which implies that there is.

Btw, Mr Deity has something important to say about marriage (all kinds) at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2fYt42kyKE

>>In short, you are asking a lot of us when you expect us to make a categorical change in what a sensitive word means<<

It's not that much of change unless you consider homosexual relationships to be radically different from heterosexual ones. And I'm not sure I buy that idea: as far as I can tell the only thing that's radically different is the sex. And in my experience relationships which tend to last - marriage like relationships - are about a whole lot of other things besides sex. As a comfortably heterosexual man I can say that I wish they were sometimes a bit more about sex than some of those other things but if wishes were horses there'd be a lot of horse dung everywhere.

>>that change is the only part of the gay marriage log of demands that we baulk at.<<

Log of demands? What log of demands and why haven't I seen it yet? It's not one of these made up documents is it?

>>How hard would it be to come up with another name for same-sex "marriage" and go with it until the meaning of "marriage" does evolve<<

They already did that: a 'civil union'. It has its supporters and its detractors. I think it could be a lot worse but it doesn't have much of a ring to it does it? Skywriters must like it though: 'Will you enter into a civil union with me?' must pay a lot more highly than 'Will you marry me?'.

The pragmatist in me likes it but the romantic does not: 'will you enter into a civil union with mne' sounds so bland and bureaucratic. Why should we keep the nice version - 'will you marry me?' - to ourselves and only allow gays the cheap shoddy version? What have they done to deserve that kind of treatment? And what terrible fate awaits us if we allow them to have our nice things?

Cheers,

Tony

Marriage makes a husband & wife. What would marriage make in a gay union ?
Who is the wife/husband in both Lesbian & homosexual terms ?
Do homosexual/lesbian wives out-live their husbands as in heterosexual couples ?
Or do statistics not mean anything when it's convenient ?

Good morning all,

@diver dan: Re “Your attempt to demean the opposition is a failure!”

Certainly hope so, Dan.

@ GlenC: “If, as you say, same sex marriage used to be sort-of legal by default in that no pre-2004 legislation actually ruled that it wasn't, I hadn't appreciated that.”

Yes, Australia has quietly accepted the small number of same-sex couples married overseas. Similarly, Australia accepted the unobtrusive polygamous marriages – in Indigenous communities and within migrant groups from countries where polygamy is normal.

These were all regarded as valid marriages by the Family Court and most other bodies dealing with marital matters.

The 2004 legislation explicitly put these outside the law. Of course, this only impacted a minuscule minority.

Re: “I insist that 2004 actually confirmed, not changed, the meaning we had long assumed ‘marriage’ to have.”

Correct, Glen. So, no, I didn't intend the inference which you have reasonably drawn. Will be more careful next time.

Re: “I'm not aware that any research specifically establishes that most Australians are also happy for those contracts to be called ‘marriage’.”

No, neither am I, Glen. I was thinking of the Galaxy poll in August which sampled 865 people nationally yielding 64% “support for same-sex marriage” – the highest since polling started in 2009.

But, no, that did not deal with terminology.

@Jason: Re “when you start to have a discussion on homosexuality they quickly become hostile and often abusive towards others …”

Have some familiarity with this, Jason. But have also had the exhilarating experience of engaging with ‘opponents’ who have changed sides following extended discussion and analysis of data.

So the debate is well worth continuing, despite hostility frequently encountered. Of course, neither ‘side’ is innocent of hostility and abuse.

Re: “you have people claiming that it says in the bible that Jesus was against gay marriage …”

Twice this year the publisher of this site has run summaries of significant changes taking place across the Judeo-Christian communities. (The second was just last week.)

So the shift is well underway, Jason.

Loved Mr Deity, btw. Thanks for onpassing.

Cheers, AA

AA

...I don’t think there are too many out there who give "two hoots" if homosexuals suffer disproportionately in bad health, just as I don’t think there are too many people out there who give a “tinkers damn” if any others’ health from any other particular group fails.

...What you present in support of your subtly buried treasure of homosexual marriage advocacy, is a “straw argument” built on a sympathy seeking headline. It is how people work; they get sucked in by it! Not this little black duck!...Better luck next time Al...

Tony, I have to confess to having had quite a few goes at thinking up a word that sounds and feels like "marry/marriage" — one that would work sensibly in contexts such as "Will you … me?". Tom/Sue and I are …", "You are invited to the … of X and Y", and have failed. I'm normally pretty good with words and had hoped to save the situation by coming up with a word that would be different from "marriage" but work to everyone's satisfaction while the people worked out whether they really did want two words or were happy to allow "marriage" to be all embracing.

I still think there ought to be such a word. Any ideas?

Glen, keep working on this. You must! The future of western Christian civilisation depends on you!

As you know, many Christians define marriage very carefully: Opposite sex, lifelong, faithful and for three purposes.

Many don’t allow remarriage for divorcees.

Hence the term ‘marriage’ = M1W1 in a monogamous, faithful, lifelong union for the purposes of companionship, sex and children. Jim Wallace will confirm this.

So, while you are at it, we need new words for these:

1. M2 or W2 in a monogamous, faithful union for all three agreed purposes: companionship, sex and raising kids.

2. M1W1 in a lifelong union where one partner has extra-marital affairs.

3. M1W1 in a lifelong union where both have affairs.

4. M1W1 in a lifelong union where they agree occasionally to invite a third person to join them for sex.

5. M1W1 in a lifelong union where neither want children.

6. M1W1 in a lifelong union but where both partners have agreed, because of age, incapacity or personal choice, they don’t want sex.

7. M1W1 in a lifelong union where the woman before the union was pregnant to a third party.

8. M2 or W2 (heterosexual or homosexual) together for two purposes: companionship and raising adopted kids. They don’t want sex.

9. M2 or W2 in a lifelong union who agree, because of age or incapacity or just personal choice, that they don’t want to have sexual relations or children – just companionship.

10. M2 or W2 in a lifelong union but where partners have agreed that they don’t want children.

11. M1W2 in a union which continues as a faithful threesome throughout their lives. Or M2W1.

12. M1W1 in a union but where one or both has already been in an earlier faithful marriage.

13. M2 or W2 in a union but where one or both has already been in an earlier marriage.

14. M1W1 in a union with a prenup covering future separation, which both parties agree will take place at a mutually agreeable time.

We need 14 new words, Glen. No hurry. Any time tomorrow is fine.

Cheers, AA

>>I still think there ought to be such a word. Any ideas?<<

Wed? It may be a bit old fashioned but I say we dust it off and put it back to use: 'Will you wed me?', 'Alice and Bonnie are wedded', 'You are invited to the wedding of Allan and Bob' all work for me.

Skywriters won't be happy though.

Cheers,

Tony

It's a simple and elegant solution, Tony Lavis… And I foresee a trend for weddings occurring on – guess which day? – yielding a mid-week day off work for those involved.

Those who regard such relationships as lifelong can also describe themselves as wedlocked.

But will 'wedding bans' describe laws prohibiting SSW?

Alan, thank you for maintaining as long as you did the effort required to discuss this community dividing question seriously and with respect. I suspect that many people would find the fourteenth repetition of your ridiculing their discomfort at being forced by law to change their lifetime's use of words such as marriage, husband and wife no more convincing than the first.

Hi again Glen,

Have just reviewed our conversation so far and admit my last post does read as being sarcastic and disrespectful.

My apologies for that, Glen. I most certainly did not intend to ridicule.

I know this is a difficult issue for many people and is causing much confusion, distress and division within families, churches, political parties and in the broad community.

Sometimes humour and satire are appropriate. But I think you are right: I misjudged it this time.

Sorry, Glen.

Alan: Apology accepted. Thank you.

I believe a very astute govt would put this issue to a referendum, to decide, at the next election? It would get them off the hook, with the reported majority!
Given around 62% now support marriage equality, it could very easily put a voting majority offside, if one particular party decided, that they simply couldn't wear any increased tolerance or genuine equality.
Some of the potential heat could be removed, before that possibility, by the passage through the parliament, of same sex civil union.
Not ideal or as much as the gay community would want or would be entitled to, if genuine equality actually determined the outcome.
In any event, it would be a step in the right direction; and, not likely to be a bridge too far?
When we reach a day, when same sex unions are perceived as part of the normal social fabric?
Perhaps blessing them with the terminology marriage won't arouse so much hostility/resistance or mean spirited intolerance/persecution or completely unchristian hate!
People in a so-called democracy are entitled to speak their mind or retain a particular view of reality.
Even if that view includes a flat 6,000 year old planet at the very centre of the universe, or that we all sprang from a single couple, meaning, many subsequent sexual unions between siblings?
But, there is no inherent right to discriminate/persecute/ or vilify, on the basis of difference!
Rhrosty.