This is the first time I think I've ever read IPA actually follow through on the social aspects of libertarian ideology, albeit with some timidity, and not just the economic ones. Social progressivism is usually the first causality in the usual Faustian bargain that goes on between ancaps/libertarians who support reactionary social and religious conservatives in order to get their economic prescriptions through.

Bravo!

I would like to see more of this, and in more visible fora too and maybe IPA can be taken seriously.

Mr Howard is right in not encouraging a lifestyle that is unhealthy, harmful and often ends in disaster. The hospitals have many people practicing this lifestyle with infectious diseases. Mr Howard should be applauded for his courage in trying to normalize something so abnormal. These people need help rather than encouragement to spread their message through society.

Runner. " These people" are first class Australian tax payers, why should they be treated as second class Australian citizens.

You appear not to be living in civilised Australia, but in a vacuum of ignorance!

Would you care to break with tradition, Runner, and offer some evidence to back your claim? Do you have any basis for stating that there are more homosexuals than heterosexuals in hospital with infectious diseases?

If John Howard thought it would help him get re-elected he would pass legislation to legalise gay marriage tomorrow.

Unfortunately he needs the 8-9% runner vote.

"The hospitals have many people practicing this lifestyle with infectious diseases."

Where did this get this amazing statistic from Runner? And exactly which infectious diseases are you referring to?

From my experience within the health care system, the majority of people in hospital suffering infection have, in fact, become infected with hospital born bacteria such as Golden staph.

Perhaps Runner, you're reliving the past where gay patients suffering full blown AIDS were (mainly through ignorance) keep in isolation wards at certain hospitals. This was in a time when the virus causing AIDS was not fully understood. Since then, it's branched into the general community who continue to pass it on through infected syringes and poor sex health standards and I'm not talking about gays and prostitutes either.

Runner, do you believe that only gay people are capable of transmitting infectious diseases? Ok, they're both of the same biological sex, but otherwise, how is their lives different from heterosexual couples? Perhaps you mistakenly believe that heterosexual couples are not immune to having affairs behind their partners backs?

Too complicated? This pigheaded dupe of the far right wouldn't recognise a principle if it came up and bit him. He is motivated soley by his own grandiose self-image - a vanity fed ego that is gleefully utilised by the numerous bible basher American evangelical style right wingers that dominate his cabinet and ministerial departments. Gay bashing is alive and well, albeit not so much now the Saturday night kickings, but the more subtle and far worse discrimination that infiltrates much government policy. As tax paying citizens, why shouldn't same sex marriages have the same entitlements as opposite sex marriages. The institute of marriage is the basic social contract, that (or should) gives society a flywheel impetus towards cohesion, and should be encouraged, not discouraged. The naysayers would presumeably prefer to see unwanted and abused children be bought up in the tender care of institutions with established track records of abuse, such as numerous catholic and anglican 'homes', rather than in a stable and loving family relationship provided by two members of the same sex.
Whether the various religions see fit to deny legitimacy to same sex marriages (a denial that drives the political agenda) is utterly irrelevent to the question, despite Howard's foiled attempt to impose a churchman as the Governor General. The refusal to recognise same sex marriages is yet another example of Howards incapacity to seize greatness when the opportunity presents itself. In the years ahead, this idiocy, driven as it is by childish prejudice and religious interference will be seen for what it is - laughable in its short-sighted stupidity.

To be fair to John Howard, passing laws supporting same-sex couples is "complicated" in the current environment if the Government is not to allow same-sex marriage.

Without a formal process of recognition to recognise same-sex couples, ie civil unions, it makes the capacity of the Federal Government to bestow civil rights on relationships very difficult without opening the floodgates to welfare abuse and rorts.

Of course this is all based on the Federal Government not legalising gay marriage, which neither political party supports.

What this really means is if the States got their act together and passed a uniform arrangement of civil unions, if Howard is being honest, the situation would become a lot less "complicated" and he should be able to pass these laws with comparative ease.

None of this changes my opinion in the article and that the solution is not for Howard to back down, but to simply call on the States to establish a form of civil unions.

Can I also recommend the best way to deal with "Runner" is to ignore his posts. Runners comments don't justify a response.

Tim Wilson
Research Fellow
Institute of Public Affairs

Tim,

It's not as complicated as it looks.

So we take it as a given that neither party is going to support same sex marriages. Fine, eventually with persuasion they might come round.

In the meantime why don't we treat same sex relationships the same as defacto relationships?

A defacto relationship while not being the full marriage, still carries protections that are currently not enjoyed by same sex relationships.

Wow and I thought those opposed to legislating in favour of homosexual behaviour were supposed to be the 'tolerant ones'.

The 20 year bombardment of the 'safe sex' message has largely failed. Most know that those who practice no self control are not going to use condoms in the heat of the moment. Those practicing sodomy have 4000 per cent more chance of getting anal cancer as those who don't practice this act.

Aimee I did not quote any statistics although I suggest you speak to any honest doctor in the infectious disease departments of the hospitals and you will find out how unhealthy and unnatural sodomy is.I have heard doctors speak on this issue And no I am not suggesting that sodomy is the only method of passing on disease. That might be why the bible encourages one man and one women to commit themselves to each other.

KIPP
I am not suggesting anyone be treated as 2nd class citizens. I am suggesting some behaviour is unhealthy and should not be encouraged.

James,

Yes and no. By opening up de facto the Government would still be broadening a definition for a relationship that would enable people who are not in a relationship, but in, perhaps, co-dependency to be able to apply for de facto status.

This raises a broader question about whether relationships should be recognised beyond those that are essentially sexual, ie should two sisters living together for 20 years be entitled to a form of recognition because of their co-dependency.

I note in the US there is an interesting debate on civil unions where some opponents of gay civil unions are happy for there to be civil unions that act as a form of recognition for different types of relationships, ie the sisters one outlined above.

I should note, I am not an expert in the technical and legal definitions of relationships and what would work best, so I am open to suggestions - even Runners when he is prepared to recognise that regardless of what he thinks, we live in a free society and that means freedom for everyone.

My view is simply opposing reform against same-sex relationships is both illiberal and anti-conservative.

Tim Wilson
Research Fellow
Institute of Public Affairs

Political labels are slippery beasts, but I think the author confuses “liberal” and “conservative” when writing about the Liberal Party. The party contains elements of both, but the Conservative wing has clearly been in the ascendency under Howard and the liberal wing in retreat.

It is liberal, not conservative, philosophy that allows society to make itself, that holds government intervention as at best a necessary evil to be undertaken sparingly, that leaves individuals alone to make their own choices about matters such as sexuality, and prizes the equal treatment of citizens.

If the Liberal Party ever becomes a liberal party, I might just vote for it.

So what is the big deal with Homosexual people in the 21st century getting married, as consenting adults with the rights of other Australians except one, I cannot see any logic as to why they are being excluded from marriage.

And why are christians so fixated on gays getting married when so many hetrosexual people are divorcing or living in sin and having children out of wedlock. Surely this is against the fundamental beliefs of their religion and where were they when Howard funded young unmarried mothers to have children without fathers, isn't that wrong as well?

Sadly the Liberal party under "Howard the dry" has lost its voice as the party that offers a real choice to the Australian community, as opposed to the talkers on the other side. The very same party that provided Indigenous people with right to vote forty years ago, and the first to have an Aboriginal politician sitting on their side of the house.

Given the hate peddled by christian groups in this country about gays, muslims and any other group of people including other christians, why hasn't the government under this old man stopped funding their generous lifestyles or is that only reserved for muslim groups.

Surely the New Zealand approach is the best compromise? To legalise homosexual marriage would deeply upset many in the community who consider that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman.

To create a new category of relationship, civil union, could benefit many couples who are not homosexual, (with unmarried sisters being an excellent example), as well as those who are homosexual. The legal results would be identical, and thus all groups would achieve what they are after, whilst not needlessly upsetting any other group.

I know that some homosexual groups oppose civil unions, but I cannot work out why.

A quick comment to Runner - a practice I normally avoid.
Runner - why do you and so many of your fellow travellers automatically assume anal intercourse etc between same sex couples, why do you always bring up the same tired old discredited arguments, and why can't you see that denying marriage rights to same sex couples stops nothing nor solves anything?
Is there, as there is with so many poofter bashers, perhaps a touch of old fashioned Freudian reaction formation here? (look it up , runner - I have no doubt whatsoever that you have never read Freud, or indeed anything else other than that well-known collection of ridiculous Hebrew myths - and even that only selectively)

As it stands a gay couple, one working full time one on newstart, have advantages under our social security laws. Even though they are in a relationship the working partners income is irrelevant. Not the same for a heterosexual couple.

Same with a couple of homosexuals on the old age pension. They both get the single amount. A heterosexual couple recieve less.

So it is "swings and roundabouts" surely laws should apply to all irrespective of sexual preference. A couple is a couple, be it sexual, platonic, co-dependence or whatever.

Equal treatment under our laws. Another reason why religious nutters should not impact on our legislation.

runner if you did not know sodomy is not an exlusively homosexual practise.

Hmm IPA member going pro on same sex? Yr not in the pay of the Democrats are you Tim?

Thought the article well written by someone who clearly knows the difference between conservatism and liberalism.

The issue here is not 'equality' but MORALITY.

"Same Sex Couples" has just as much 'dignity' as a man in love with and sexually gratifying himself with a dog or a sheep.

Call me any name you like, but don't call me a man without conviction.

"Same sex" should be limited to FRIENDSHIP and that is "it". But the meaning for this discussion is...

Men who live with men (and Women with women) in a sexual realtionship.

It was an abomination in the days of Moses..and it remains an abomination today. Capitulation to this, is capitulation to a moral relativism of the most heinous kind.. and the ramifications of it will echo down the valley of social/moral death in ways you cannot even begin to imagine.

The Highway to hell is not just an AC/DC song..it is a social reality invading us from every side... slicked up and articulate spokes people who argue its legitimacy.

Why not argue "Adult Child sex is a positive experience"? Well? Why not?

1/ The 'Children of God' sect of the 60's did that.
2/ Orthodox Judaism contains in the Midrash that betrothal is confirmed by intercourse with a child of 3 yrs and 1 day age (yes..I HAVE personally verified this)
http://www.come-and-hear.com/navigate.html
3/ The Quran claims you can divorce pre-pubescent children, from a CONSUMATED marriage.... Surah 65:4

The day I heard a lawyer for the Islamic council of Victoria in the 2 CTF case claim "Truth is not a defense"... my heart was galvanized.
If such a day ever comes to this land.. we are all lost.

NEVER think that this is just 'one important social issue'... it is make or break for our whole social system. If there are no moral standards in this area of life.. then there are NO moral standards... it is clearly just like "Pick-a-Box" morality...

NO- to any legislation which facilitates:

-Same Sex marriages/couples
-Defends child abuse in the name of religion and 'tolerance'.

ruawake: "Equal treatment under our laws. Another reason why religious nutters should not impact on our legislation."

Boazy: "'Same Sex Couples' has just as much 'dignity' as a man in love with and sexually gratifying himself with a dog or a sheep.

Call me any name you like, but don't call me a man without conviction."

I'll just call you a religious nutter, and a hateful one at that. Just as well you're only an anonymous goose that nobody with any sense takes seriously. Your "conviction" might be worthy of some small respect if it wasn't so completely eclipsed by your moral cowardice.

CJ.... In a democracy, I totally welcome your description.. but it's rather "hateful".

It never ceases to amaze me how those decrying 'hateful' in others.. manifest it themselves..and with a degree of refinement which would qualify them as a master of rhetoric.

You COULD have said "Strongly disagree with" which is the democratic method..and also the ONLY acceptable 'tone'...

But no.. you have to go this far:

RELIGIOUS NUTTER
HATEFUL...

i.e.. you turned an issue of social concern into a personal attack on me... :) but it's ok.. keep it up if you like.. by the way.. seeing as you have all those thousands of posts of mine printed out and pasted all over the walls of the 'little room' that only 'you' get access to there at your place.. (with the good bits highlighted of course) you might like to remind me of any personal attack I've made on YOU... (no.. the BB one is not admissable..that was in response to his own malicious attack on another person)

Why does 'disagree' always have to translate to 'hate' in the mind of folks like you ? man.. glad ur not in power... I'm rather feeling the hot and heavy breathing of a large male lion with a rather fixated gaze at my head... at the MCG... where blessed friendly people such as your kind self have just thrown the 'disagreers' for the pleasure of a public spectacle.

At least in my case.. I can say "This is how the Almighty feels about the issue". You can say "Hmm.. I think its a good idea"......I wonder what 'tomorrows' idea will be..... age of consent?

Boazy, I think that when you equate same sex relationships with bestiality, any reasonable person would regard that as a hateful statement. When you claim to base your extreme homophobia on your knowledge of "how the Almighty feels about the issue", then that places you firmly in the religious nutter camp, I'm afraid.

As for printing any of your drivel out, I can assure you that reading it online is bad enough, without wasting ink and paper on it.

Boaz. "Same Sex couples has just as much 'dignity' as a man in love with and sexually gratifying himself with a dog or a sheep".

Now that is a hateful comment.

Your social ignorance and contemptible attitude towards fellow humanbeings, indicates your own lack of morality!

A physician writes
'The list of diseases found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners as a result of anal intercourse is alarming:

Anal Cancer,Chlamydia trachomatis.Cryptosporidium.Giardia lamblia
Herpes simplex virus Human immunodeficiency virus,Human papilloma virus
Isospora belli. Microsporidia Gonorrhea, Viral hepatitis types B & C
Syphilis

I wonder who really are those who 'hate' the family unit. They are prepared to hold to their dogmas and lusts despite the compelling evidence of damage caused by the promotion of this unnatural practice.

Ok it seems to me that there are two groups, both of whom are unlikely to be persuaded by the opposite's opinion.

Some of the language on these postings is disappointing. For those complaining about "hate", perhaps not posting with hate first place is a good way to avoid it coming back at you.

Suggesting that same-sex couples have the comporable dignity of a man or woman gratifying themselves with a dog or a sheep is just silly. Such comments do not warrant a response. I am quite sure any reasonable person on either side of this debate would look at such statements and give them no due consideration. In fact opponents of Governments recognising same-sex relationships should be the ones standing up and pointing out the stupidity of such statements. Failure to do so ensures that they are tarred with the statements of the same brush if they don't.

The suggestion that legalising same-sex relationships opens the door for legalising adult-child relations also lacks any credibility. There is a clear difference - it is based on consent and a recognition of a consensual decision made by a mature mind that understands the consequences of the action. It is ridiculous to suggest a child has the mental maturity to make a decision to have sexual relations with an adult. It bears no comparison to people in same-sex relationships. Two men, or two women, in a relationship of up to a lifetime has a much better understanding of the consequences of their consensual relationship. I recognise that some people disagree because they are not recognising the religious consequences, but that comes down to personal values. There is also the possibilty that they do understand it, but don't care. Again, a personal decision.

I don't sympathise at all with a lot of the postings on this site for those who oppose same-sex relationships, but those individuals are entitled to their view. Even if I really, really don't like their view.

We live in a free society and means freedom for everyone.

Play nice.

Tim Wilson
Research Fellow
Institute of Public Affairs

Nice post, Tim.

I'm having a little private bet with myself how quickly it will attract the "MIUAUG" lecture.

The one that says "if you don't follow the same rules as I do, you must be making it up as you go. By definition, this means that it is only a short trip from where you now stand to bestiality and paedophilia. Not only will you soon be promoting this as acceptable behaviour, you will probably also want to make it compulsory."

There you go, Boaz, I saved you the effort.

What no-one has mentioned is that any government support, of any kind, for any relationship between two people, is thoroughly artificial, and highly anachronistic.

There is very little, apart from the soggy handkerchiefs, that separates a "wedding" from a civil contract, entered into by consenting adults, designed to normalise a post-relationship existence for each, whether pre- or post-mortem.

All the handouts, subsidies and other perquisites that attend the state of married life are totally redundant, and serve only to further blur the lines between state and church. They should all be removed, and a level playing field reinstated for all citizens, financially at least.

It can then be up to the individual conscience whether they feel happier being "blessed" by their church, or simply register a contract form that has legal status over their affairs, joint and several.

For those claiming the religious moral high ground as a reason for 'gay bashing' - aren't all equal under God's eyes? If so, don't all deserve the same treatment and rights within a humane society? I'd like to think that we have progressed from the time of Moses and the bible since it was written more than 2000 years ago. If you really believe in all that this book says and nothing else, then one would assume you still live in a world without any of the mod cons that progress and intellect now afford us. With such progress being made in every other aspect of life, why not in the equality of all men and women, regardless of their religious, sexual, political or other preferences.