@saintfletecher

1)
I asked:
"Do you really believe that this campaign will stop at civil unions?”

The answer I got was:
"IN MY OWN REPLY, the answer is yes. The Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby are only interested in civil union ON THIS ISSUE, and all those other stupid scenarios are of no interest to these lobby groups."

My conclusion:
You're hedging -your ideological masters haven’t told you yet

2)

As I said before, this is not wowsers against liberals
“Now all we are haggling about is the price”
(Or where we draw the line)
Saintfletcher, your howls of moral indignation at some of my suggested combinations would put to shame anything from the religious right

When Jon Faine on ABC today put forward the argument that once you legalised gay marriage you could not logically deny marriage for someone wanting to marry two people or even more on a segment of the Conversation Hour, the gay activist he was interviewing replied that he indeed saw no problem in three people or more forming a civil union of their own. In fact, he even knew of a gay threesome that shared a relationship.

So OK, one person says it is OK for polygamy. I am sure we will draw the line there. Wont we? And if you deny that threesome as a marriage then you are anti-polygamist and a terrible-terrible person, a conservative and do not understand that society has all types of people and relationships.......

Each and everyone of us, are who we are. We get up go to work, earn a dollar. Come home, and what ever the day was like. When we walk through that door, the burdens are left on the doormat.
We will put a meal together, watch some crap on telly, maybe do some laundry, or maybe read a chapter of that book, that always sends you to sleep. If our lives offend you, we do not apologise. Its our life and we are happy.

R0bert re ‘"obviously children are sometimes the result of sex!". So where do they come from the rest of the time? ;)’ yes it’s probably quite badly worded. Sorry about that! What I mean is, sometimes people have sex and conceive a child and sometimes people have sex and don’t conceive a child. Aside from artificial insemination, I guess.

Horus what do you mean by “The legal establishment willing to "modify" consent to accommodate lobby groups re rape & domestic violence.”?

I agree that there are unions/marriages initiated overseas, where consent requirements are different or non-existent are recognised. In my opinion, no-one should be forced to be married against their consent. This is different from someone who consents to an arranged marriage. Also in some countries overseas women are considered property and I think that is bad also.

My main objection to polygamy is hypocrisy (ie most male practitioners are happy to have several wives but would be aghast if one of their wives considered taking another husband) and the lack of consent to marriage in situations where the wives are very young. If for example a woman wanted to enter into a civil union with two men and they were all consenting adult humans then I fail to see the difficulty.

I support the idea that all individuals get should get legal rights and have welfare and be taxed based on their standing as individuals rather than based on what relationships they are in. Marriage would remain between a man and a woman. Parents would have equal rights/responsibilities for their children. Anyone who wished to could enter into a ‘Civil Union’ with anybody else and make the appropriate arrangements for the situations that Hamlet describes (more work for lawyers! Tee hee).

Pedant, thanks for another great post (and a good summary in the Mums off bums thread as well).

No need to be sorry for the wording, it tickled by funny bone and I try and do my part to keep some humor in these threads.

R0bert

Goodness, Horus certainly can babble on with pointless obfuscation. Legal recognition of same-sex relationships is about precisely that. No more, no less.

Not about animal fetishes. Nor multiple wives. Nor the sexual abuse of children. The vast majority of Australians would rightly view these irrelevant unlawful behaviours as flatly unnacceptable (all harm, no good).

Despite this, homorejectionists like Horus would have us all believe if we legally recognise same-sex relationships, we must legalise the aformentioned unlawful behaviours too. What patent nonsense.

Also contrary to the strident assertions of homorejectionists, same-sex relationship recognition does have a high level of popular support:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/younger-voters-support-samesex-unions/2006/06/19/1150701484555.html