This is the 21st Century - and despite
the fact that many people support
gay marriage - why are they not legally
recognised?

Do gay marriages somehow
threaten straight marriages?

Why can't we have a full debate on the issue
with the lawmakers, politicians, and the
community at large.

Your thoughts please?

Foxy I think the debate should be over what involvement the government/community should have in regulating and endorsing the choices of consenting adults. It may also be about what marriage means and if there should be another legally recognised status which provides the same legal protections.

There are a whole bunch of issues around this.
- Gay marriage
- Plural marriage
- Fixed term marriage (with an option to extend)
- Should a marriage be something that's explicitly entered into or something based on a government definition?
- Is no-fault divorce the best option or should there be consequences for breach of contract?
- The difficulties around property settlements at the end of a relationship
- If we want the government involving itself then should pre-nups be mandatory?

I'd rather see a lot less government involvment but if we have extensive government involvement people should be better protected from some of the mess when things go wrong.

R0bert

Dear RObert,

Let's just legally recognise same-sex marriages
first, and then work on all the other issues
you've raised. At the moment we've got a ban on
the civil rights of people for religious and other
reasons. Let's start with fixing that first.

Foxy I don't like the piecemeal approach to civil liberties. Recognising same sex marriage while stopping basic legal recognition of other forms of relationships entrenches the idea that the government should be able to intefere. As long as the law does not provide disproportionate public benefits to those in particular types of relationships I don't believe that the government should involve itself in.

The core of the issue is about wether we think that the government should regulate what spousal type relationships people should be able to form. If it's just about public acceptance of particular types of relationships it entrenches the idea of the right to discriminate based on personal taste.

R0bert

'Should a marriage be something that's explicitly entered into'

Absofuckenloootly! It's crazy that we have to ask that question. Sneaky bastards.

'If we want the government involving itself then should pre-nups be mandatory?'

With respect to the above, definitely.

'Let's just legally recognise same-sex marriages
first, and then work on all the other issues
you've raised.'

Yep, but it's too late now. If they'd have been brave enough to do that in the first place, there would still be an option in Australia to live together while being financially independent. Basically what we have now is compulsory marriage after two years.

Why don't they just go the whole hog and enforce children by 2 years after 'marriage' as well.

The reason gay marriage will never be legal is because Christians will be prosecuted for saying it's wrong to be gay. Secondly, your kids WILL be taught about gay sex in primary school if gay marriage is the law of the land. When this happens, most parents would then take their kids out of public schools and put them in Christians schools so their kids would avoid reading books like My Two Dad's.

This would be unfair to the children of atheists because they'd have to remain in gay-friendly public schools, and most likely grow up to be atleast bisexual - we're all products of our environment I'm afraid.

Foxy,

To me it's a no brainer of course!
As I said on the post on the other topic.
"So long as they have the same legal and cultural standing (long term public/social commitment) what's in a name? "
Meaning why not call it marriage?

My experience leads me to conclude that 'marriage' to the non religious and gays, represents social (as opposed to legal)commitment and acceptance that they are a couple.

NB That by no means that mean that some gays aren't at least as religious as the heterosexual (god knows why given the oppositional dogma they face from the churches. Perhaps their version of christian values is more apposite).

Resistance to this is clearly religion influenced and is to me one more reason that Church should be separated from state.

Sorry foxy no disrespect intended, I still believe in peoples' right to believe or not believe in a god as they choose .

again the poor children will lose. Fancy having such an unhealthy, unnatural lifestyle thrown in your face. Obviously medical research on this abominable lifestyle will never be honestly reported. Along with fornication and adultery this lifestyle leads to hell. Next we will be being told paedophilles are born that way. How sick!

I've got to admit that I can't understand
why in our society we don't simply -
"Live and let live." Do we all have to be
the same? Must we only recognise marriages
between a man and a woman? I understand
that for religious reasons this has been
considered the "norm." But does it have
to continue to be the only acceptable
"norm" for the future?

Surveys tell us that about 10 percent of
the population is believed to be
predominantly homosexual, although most of
these people also have some heterosexual
experience and may actually marry. The
great majority of gay men and lesbian women,
however, form stable, long-lasting relationships
with a person of the same sex at some time of
their lives. Changing attitudes have made these
unions far more socially acceptable than in the
past, and, in fact, some churches are now
performing weddings for gay couples, although
these marriages have no legal force. My question
is - why not? Why are straight marriages any
better than gay marriages?

Does anyone have the right to tell two
consenting adults who they have the legal right
to choose as their life's partner, and spend the
rest of their life with?

To me, it seems that this is such a personal
choice - and as long as it doesn't harm anyone,
who are we to dictate our standards and values -
onto any one else?

Yeah but they're rubbin' it in our face! ;-)

What they're rubbin' I'd love to know.

Hey runner, do you think if you saw more gay couples rubben' it in your face, you might be tempted to try it out? Maybe you're scared because, deep down, you really want someone to rub somethin' in your face? Maybe you really wanna do some rubbin' of your own?

It is common for two people and more to share living arrangements and support one another without having sexual relations. Then again, sexual relations are not a necessary requirement for a heterosexual couple to be considered de factos either.

Such couples can respect and love each other very deeply. Who isn't aware of older women in particular who never married or never re-married and shared an abode and living arrangements with each other for their remaining lives? Sometimes such couples are related, sometimes not what is usually true is the dependence upon one another for companionship, support and love in their daily lives. What about their rights? Why should such couplings (and some arrangements could be threesomes or more) be discriminated against if homosexual couplings can obtain benefits because some sex might or might not be going on?

The word 'commitment' is bandied about, but is the commitment of the two maiden aunts who have lived together for thirty years any lesser or different? As for 'intimacy', well that cannot be taken to mean sexual intimacy exclusively because sex in marriage is far from a given as many husbands and wives would attest and it certainly isn't something that can be enforced.

As someone who has recently entered marriage, I find the notion of a couple of blokes or two women pretending they have an entitlement to be categorized in the same was as what is clearly defined as a union of “one man and one woman”. I likewise find the notion of a bigamous / polyamorous relationship equally invalid from being deemed “marriage”.

Every social order is founded on standards. Standards of law, standards of behavior and standards of conduct etc..

I do not feel threatened by gay marriages any more than I feel threatened by asylum seekers but that is no reason to allow them in Australia (gay marriages or asylum seekers)

Notions such as gay or fixed-term only marriages (as Robert brought up) dilute the foundations of those standards and what we end up with is a murky sort of social anarchy, where standards are abandoned and anything goes, provided some government functionary has stamped it.

As for some acknowledgement of relationship, for the purposes of welfare receipts or recognition in a will or as an insurance beneficiary…. I have no problem with

Dear RObert,

Fair enough.

Dear Truthnow...,

If we're all products of our environment -
why are there so many differences between us?
Shouldn't we make allowances for individual
differences?

Dear Examinator,

I too support a person's right to believe or
not believe - but I wouldn't dream of forcing
my own beliefs onto others. Or try to convert
anyone to my way of thinking. I don't have
a "missionary" complex.

Dear Runner,

I know that you write from the heart, and I
respect that. But as I've said before,
intolerance isn't Christian - and it's not
our place to judge others.

Dear Houellie,

You can't make a person love you, or
like you. You can only stalk them and
hope for the best.

Oh well Foxy, It doesn't really matter what we think about gay marriage, thanks to liberalism and diversity, the Taliban are gunning for Australia now -

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26312324-421,00.html

And I'm pretty sure they're against gay rights.

Foxy,

Haven't you heard of Stockholm Syndrome?

Col,

Oh yeah how did the Wedding go? Are there any pics? Which wine did you choose?

'where standards are abandoned and anything goes, provided some government functionary has stamped it.'

Oh I do think you're too late old chap.

'Every social order is founded on standards. Standards of law, standards of behavior and standards of conduct etc..'
Standards change all the time. Weekly in fact when the bureaucrats and consultants define 'Best Practice'. Do you think a lady should always wear gloves and a gentleman a hat and coat? I really think they should rename the 'glove box' in cars...

And what of the standards in Beer sizes. The latest invention in Sydney is the Schmiddie. A drink in a glass resembling a Schooner, but about 50 mls short.

Cornflower,

Hmmm. Well, the point I'm making is why don't we let people decide to 'commit' or not, rather than the government playing such a guessing game. That seems to me a pretty guaranteed measure of people's commitment to each other.

First why?
Weddings after all are a Christian thing aren't they.
With some thought the Gay community can come up with a name for a ceremony that lets them express love and faithfulness, whatever they wish.
Even mainstream community's see many common law couples.
I think the real complaint is about lawful rights of gay couples.
Each year we get closer to equality here and I can think of no reason they should not have equal rights now.
And while Christians will not be pleased with my views, I see zero reason they should be involved IN law making ,for any of us.

Foxy, "Why are straight marriages any
better than gay marriages?"

Why is homosexual sex in a pairing any more deserving of recognition and government support than a coupling where sex isn't a part of the relationship but nonetheless there is mutual commitment, intimacy, ongoing support and love? Specifically, why shouldn't any two or more people who share life together and intend to do so for as long as possible be formally recognised and supported by government if a homosexual couple should be?

What is being recognised here, is it just the sex or what?

Of course any government law discriminates, that is the whole purpose of laws and in interfering in the relationships of heterosexuals the government is playing its best cards to encourage population growth and ensure that as far as possible it is able to avoid the risks and costs of children roaming around without care and support.

If the Marriage Act discriminates against homosexual pairings it sure as anything discriminates against all other possible combinations and permutations of partnerships and couplings too, excepting the one that the State sees it is odds on to gets the most advantage out of (one man and one woman).

Of course the State has even gone further with heteros to say that it (the State) will jolly well tell them when they are in de facto relationships too, even though one or both partners might have other ideas on that. Not that is really an invasion of rights, especially where the State legalises bigamy where it suits it to do so and diminishes the rights of the legally wedded partner and issue therof.

Houellebecq, ".. the point I'm making is why don't we let people decide to 'commit' or not, rather than the government playing such a guessing game."

Who cares who commits to whom? In fact few care, but many like me strongly object to our taxes being wasted where there substantial proved value for money is not being obtained. Traditionally, most nations have seen advantage in supporting heterosexual unions. I am willing to go along with those arguments and pay more taxes although I cannot see myself or any of my family ever benefiting from the 'Gummint' handouts.

Further, while I accept that that (say) the pollies' or public servants' super schemes ought pay out to the spouses of deceased members (Marriage Act, I would wish) and child dependants, I thoroughly object to these taxpayer supported funds paying supporting pensions or part-pensions in all other cases.

Individuals choose their partners, not the State. If the state must support heterosexual unions in the interests of population growth and child raising then so be it, but try to explain to (say) a professional career woman who chooses not to marry or maybe even to have children why she should have to pay higher taxes to support Bob Brown's partner simply because he is Bob brown's partner while Bob is alive or has passed on to another place.

"why she should have to pay higher taxes to support Bob Brown's partner simply because he is Bob brown's partner while Bob is alive or has passed on to another place."

Because that would be a step towards 'equality'. For over thirty years we have had to endure extremely sexist laws and had to pay for it - more than just financially, although that is closer to the answer to the question.

If we truly want legal equality in this country, then we should consider ALL marriages gay marriages. No more gender bias. Let's get past that final hurdle and treat all people the same, whether male or female, straight or gay. We're a long way from that yet.

It is easy to say treat all people the same but who is going to pay for it? That is a Cargo Cult mentality. If I am to pay taxes I want to see some demonstrated value for money in the expenditure, not just an expansion of the gravy train for even more hangers-on.

Where is the practical benefit to the State? Why should taxpayers pony up to support Bob's nocturnal diversions" Instead of shelling out for Bob Brown's partner we should be reeling back benefits for the partners of politicians generally.

What about the discriminatory treatment of the single taxpayer who doesn't have or doesn't want a live in for sex? Because that is just what the taxpayer would be paying for otherwise all couples who share, such as the couple of elderly sisters down the road, would also be included as beneficiaries of spousal benefits too.

Anyway, why should all people be treated the same? Russia and China were into that and it failed abysmally.

Why should a single person be supporting through his/her taxes the sex choices of Bob Brown and others? Again, precisely where is the benefit to the taxpayer and to the State?

"Why should a single person be supporting through his/her taxes the sex choices of Bob Brown and others? Again, precisely where is the benefit to the taxpayer and to the State?"

Maybe I can try to answer that question better if I try again.

There is no benefit to the honest taxpayer but the benefit to the state is majority votes. The single persons have been supporting through his/her taxes the sex choices of others for the past 30 years.

As one example, how many single fathers received the $3000 baby bonus for their sex choices?

If gender equality is truly our societal goal, then there is inherently no reason for any particular gender of bride and groom to walk down the aisle into 'holey' matrimony. Apart from the hired suits and wedding gowns, they are both (all) legally identical - equal.

What is happening in the marriage ceremony is a man and a woman are publicly declaring that each is consenting to take to other person as an exclusive sexual partner for the rest of their life. This is the foundation of good health and the basis of good families. People are free to establish conscenting relationships on any basis in our society - they are not marriages!

However marriage entails a male and a female, in mutual and exclusive union. There is the potential of a product being formed in a marriage; and that is children. No two persons of the same sex can produce as of that relationship their own family. Please tell the children the truth that it takes a male and a female, a mother and a father to give birth to a child. Never two mums or two Dads

Col
What has your nuptials got to do with anything? Anxious to tell us you're not gay, perhaps? See you have told us something about you, you're a homophobe. Who would have guessed!

Cornflower,
your logic is running around in ever decreasing circles smacks of hysteria in search of an argument.

Foxy you write

'Dear Runner,

I know that you write from the heart, and I respect that. But as I've said before, intolerance isn't Christian - and it's not our place to judge others.'

With all due respects if you are going to take the high moral ground try and get an understanding of the Scriptures. You seem to have a warped view of tolerance failing to realize that Jesus never told us to tolerate evil. Just read what He writes in regards to adults who cause children to sin. It seems you have judged the fact that I judge others. Being tolerant or judgemental as you put it will never make lying, adultery, fornication, stealing or homosexuality right. You judge that homosexuality is normal, I judge it is a perversion. Now have some tolerance of others views. People practicing homosexuality need mercy and grace not encouragement to continue in their sin.

Self-lubricating anuses;
Semen and faeces metamorphosising into self-fertilised eggs,
attaching themselves to the lining of the rectum and growing into children;
male nipples giving succour to the young;
women with strap-on dildos ejaculating into lesbian vaginas.
The scientific evidence is in:
Dilating sphincters in the rectal birth canal prove it.
Homosex is just the same as heterosex.
That our medical textbooks don’t yet reflect our new-found knowledge on human sexuality is bewildering.

Well, as they say, 'god created Adam and Eve', not 'Adam and Steve'.

And God created homosexuality and lesbianism.

It's amazing in this day and age that this discussion is even taking place in a 1st world country like ours.

There's still quite a few places in the world where people who are not heterosexual are imprisoned regularly and even executed.

'It's amazing in this day and age that this discussion is even taking place in a 1st world country like ours.'

if many get their way with the 'bill of rights' many will be jailed in the 'civilised' world for expressing an opinion contrary to the secularist.

Dear runner,

The main reason for denying marriage to
gay couples appears to be that all major
religions consider homosexuality a sin;
however, all Australians are supposed to
be equal under the law. Government agencies
and independent courts must treat everyone
fairly. All Australians are entitled to the
protection of the law. And the law clearly
states that a person's religious views or
lack thereof must be protected. Civil and
religious marriages are two separate
institutions. Marriage by the state is a
secular activity; the government cannot start
making laws just because a religion says they
should. As someone pointed out in an article
I was reading, "What's next, should we make
taking the Lord's name in vain a criminal
activity because Christians consider it a breaking
of a commandment?"

As for your reference to the Scriptures regarding
gay marriage. The Scriptures must be taken in
context to the times in which they were written -
and as you must be aware - there are various
different interpretations given to them by many
theologians. However, while the Old Testament
focused on rules and consequences, the New Testament
offers a message of love.

Rather than trying to be God and pass judgement on
others, a better option for a proclaimed
believer such as yourself may be to pray and ask
for help - to get
rid of judgemental attitudes and prejudices.

Marriage by the term that identifies a male and female bonded relationship for the mutual support and committment to bear and raise children called family. Family is a biological term meaning genetic offspring. Children have a natural right to know ancestory, to be nurtured by their biological parents. There is no way children are the offspring of two persons of the same sex.

What the Scripture condemns is anal sex because it is unclean act and the breeding ground for disease that the body is excreating. It is the connection of the purity of sexuality with excreated body waste. That is why we have a campaign to wash hands after visiting the place of excreatment. Males are the main offenders of neglect in this area.

Of course gay marriage should be allowed in Australia. If two people of whatever gender love each other and want to commit publicly to each other, what business is it of anybody else or the government?

While the expressed homophobia from our religious fundies is predictable claptrap, I am a little surprised at the reactions of some others. As a professed libertarian, Col's denial of the right of homosexuals to marry each other seems a tad hypocritical.

Cornflower's convoluted reasoning also seems inconsistent from someone who has purported at OLO to be a defender of homosexual sensibilities. If we as taxpayers support allowances for the spouses of parliamentarians, how on earth does it matter what gender and/or sexuality they are? Incidentally, Bob Brown isn't the only homosexual politician in Australia.

Memo to the godbotherer contingent: Christians didn't invent marriage. Every society on earth has its version/s of marriage, many of which diverge markedly from the exclusive nuclear model currently in favour among Christians.

Also, there's a lot more to homosexual relations than anal sex. Some people need to get out more, I think. If you don't like the idea of homosexual marriage, just don't marry someone of your own gender, I reckon.

Denying marriage to a homosexual couple
is a form of minority discrimination.
As I stated earlier - we have in this
country equal protection laws - that state
the rights of minorities should be protected.
Denying marriage to a gay couple is no different
than denying marriage to Aboriginal, Chinese,
Lebanese, or any other minority couples.

People argue that allowing gay marriages will
hurt society. How? How does it hurt society
or people not involved in the marriage?
Marriage is a personal commitment that really is
no one's business. Society shouldn't be dictating what
two consenting adults can or can't do when no one
else is hurt in the process. If the church or certain
groups disapprove, that's their right but it isn't
their right to stop it.

One of the main arguments against gay marriage is that
it would further erode family values.

The opposite is true. The problems related to sexuality in
our society such as STD's stem from carefree, permissive
lifestyles. In other words having frequent, unprotected
sex with many partners. Marriage on the other hand
encourages people to settle down and to give up that type
of lifestyle. Married people commit themselves to one
partner and work to build a life together.

Isn't that the type of behaviour we want to encourage?

The only thing that should matter in any marriage is love.
Many people talk about legal contracts that can give
homosexuals essentially the same rights as a married couple.
If that's the case - then why don't heterosexual couples
use these legalities instead of marriage? Just perhaps
there's more to marriage than that. Perhaps marriage is
a commitment that says, "I love you so much that I want
to live the rest of my life with you."

Dear Rehctub,

If God didn't make Adam and Steve - Who did?

Why shouldn't gay people not marry? It is up to them, if they are happy, great! It is for no one else to decide.
Bloody moralists everywhere. If all those moralists only have stood up when we went to Iraq, with no questions asked, 1 million people could still be alive.
Those are the same bunch of people who feel at unease that the US is now run by a black man, as they are against muslims, refugees and so on.
Look into your heart and give life a chance.

m2catter,
You said, "If all those moralists only have stood up when we went to Iraq, with no questions asked, 1 million people could still be alive". I assume you mean, we should have objected against our entry into Iraq? If we did not a different 1,000,000 people would have died by our neglect to invade. Have you heard of the Kurdish people Saddam gassed? Have you heard of the conflict between different Muslim tribes like the Sunni and Shiite? When my nephew served in Iraq he was disgusted that most Iraqi males were bisexual, claiming men are for sexual pleasure, women are for babies.

In the last 10 years 1,200,000 people have died in Australia and you didn't lift a finger in objection. Over 8,000 persons in Australia have died with AIDS mostly from the homosexual community. Of course this does not concern you; you are still alive. Millions have died in African nations with AIDS because most males engage in homosexual practises and pass it to their wives

C J Morgan

Of course anyone who disagrees with you is guilty of convoluted reasoning or more usually, would be given a prejudicial label.

That homosexual pairings are not covered by the Marriage Act is simply because the State chose to regulate, support and exploit the common natural couplings that work to the advantage of the community.

As stated earlier, the State perceives that it needs population sustainability to keep its culture alive and hopefully some increase to provide the services and support that help the disadvantaged and vulnerable and for progress.

Quite obviously in its proactivity the State didn't seek to exclude for the sake of excluding, but being parsimonious with taxpayers' money (and that should be encouraged because there were some benefits involved) and reflecting the nation's conscience, the State deliberately referred to 'one man and one woman' and to a marriageable age (which some libertarian multiculturalists do not think should apply to indigenous children).

As I also pointed out earlier, there is a broad spectrum of life relationships and living arrangements that were not picked up by the Marriage Act and that was quite deliberate. Frankly I cannot see how any can possibly maintain that the Marriage Act should be trashed because its purposes are no longer valid or necessary when there is abundant evidence from government reports that firstly, the Act is still strongly supported by voters and secondly, the fertility of Australian couples has lagged for decades behind the absolute minimum required to maintain our population and way of life.

Of course the Marriage Act was never framed to recognise, celebrate and promote each and every combination and permutation of loving, committed, supportive and (hopefully) enduring relationship in the community, otherwise two maiden aunties living together would be getting a bit of tax relief and other slight guvvy benefits along with other pairings of two women (or men) where there is a bit of nocturnal nookie as well.

What evidence is there that the majority of homosexuals desire State regulation of their relationships and for Centrelink to invade their bedrooms to confirm?

Hi Philo,
don't share your opinion at all. If we wouldn't have helped to invade Iraq, those 1 million people would still be alive, or at least most of them. Saddam was a bastard, no denying, and if he would still be the head of his country, he might well have killed another thousand or so, to keep the balance his way, to stay in power. Who knows.
That doesn't give us the right to do what we did. I think that all people sharing your thoughts on this subject should fly over to Iraq, and ask or tell those who are left behind, that it was only for their best.
We are living here in Australia in a very safe place. All your loved ones are still alive and healthy? Good, I believe we should treat others with the same respect. People want to live, where ever that is.
The reason for the Iraq war was a complete different one, and to relate now to Saddams killings in an attempt to shift the responsibility towards him or to justify that stupid and cowardly war make matters worse for me. It was us, who failed.

In regards to gay men and aids, what has that to do with the subject of gay marriages?
If a guy wants to marry a guy, fine - if they are in love, why shouldn't they marry? The very same applies for gay females.
It is not up to us, to decide on other peoples love. Being gay is not an easy one, as I have witnessd several times here in WA.

Dear Philo,

You raised the topic of STD's, that
stem from having frequent, unprotected sex with
many partners et cetera. Well as I stated earlier,
marriage encourages people to settle down and to give
up that type of lifestyle. Married people commit
themselves to one partner and work to build a life
together. I repeat, isn't that the type of behaviour
we want to encourage?

Dear Cornflower - Gays have been demonstrating for
years for their right to marry in cities around
the country. We're not talking about maiden aunts
who live together in this thread - we're talking
about the rights of gay people who want to marry.
The Bill of Marriage quite clearly states that:
"Marriage is defined as a union of a man and a
woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily
entered into for life..." This is discrimination.
Marriage is a commitment - does it matter that the
couple doesn't fit into what society is used to.
Society shouldn't be dictating what two people can
or can't do when no one else is hurt in the process.
If the church or certain groups disapprove, that's
their right - but it isn't their right to stop it.

Foxy

ALL legislation discriminates if you would like to view it that way. What piece of legislation entitles without thereby excluding?

Nowhere does the Marriage Act set out to exclude homosexuals, rather such personal relationships, like the maiden aunts who love, respect and support each other, were rightly deemed to be quite irrelevant to the objectives and purposes of the Act and were not included.

The Marriage Act is fine as it is and it performs the purposes it was framed for. No substantial case has been made to trash the Act and come up with something else and as demonstrated the need to encourage increased fertility and to ensure the most economic and effective family arrangement for the care and raising of children is more pressing than ever before.

It is assumed by the hip supporters of homosexual marriage that all or even most homosexuals would be all for what they propose, but where is the evidence for that?

However notwithstanding any of that, homosexual relationships are irrelevant to the Marriage Act, full stop.

I haven't read anything here from anybody wanting to abolish the Marriage Act. All that some of us are asking for is it that it be amended so that homosexuals who want to marry aren't being discriminated against - as they clearly are under the status quo.

None of the homophobes here has posted the semblance of a valid argument against allowing gay marriage. Why should people who happen to be gay have their rights attenuated so that the prudes and godbotherers can have their prejudices affirmed?

Cornflower,
I said much the same as CJ your argument(sic) is a series of unfounded assumptions that bounce around and show no reasoned direction in fact start with the conclusion then searches to *manufacture* a justification.

I would imagine the last thing on the minds of the authors of our marriage act was to turbo charge births.(One of your many dubious based assumptions).

That was the Cheshire Cat's idea. Increasing Current wisdom is that more population shouldn't be our primary goal

FYI Marriage has been used and abused through eons by every race most often to signify ownership and to establish heretical links. After that it was used as a means to facilitate census for taxation etc. Churches adopted it as a means of controlling their flock to justify their existence and prevent intermarriage with other faiths.(all this is ultimately about power) Comparatively recently it also became to signify love, choice and personal one to one commitment.

Tell me where in that is it functionally exclusively heterosexual? That concept clearly comes to us from our religion (again, a means to control their flock).

Given we are essentially a secular state one would have hoped we've become more rational since then.

C J Morgan

A person who voices an alternative opinion is by your reckoning a homophobe? Where is your evidence for that?

Just to correct a misleading impression you have given, if your proposal is accepted it wouldn't only be the few homosexuals who want Marriage Act coverage because they derive personal advantage from it who would be affected would it?

In fact ALL homosexuals would be affected and in various ways depending on their lifestyle and circumstances> Many could come off worse than they were before. Examples of how that could happen could come from Centrelink and ATO. How many homosexuals would like the State determining whether they are in fact in a de facto relationship or 'co-habitating' without that being their intent or belief?

It would be interesting to know where the push for 'gay' marriage is coming from and whether the debate is being skewed in favour of the privileged few. Also, is the change more beneficial to one gender than the other? It is easy to see how those on the public payroll could benefit with super and other conditions at stake but what about the common people, particularly those on fixed and low incomes who could well be disadvantaged?

Apart from that, it is less than honest to claim that such a change to the Marriage Act constitutes anything less than a challenge to and total revision of the aims, purposes and desired outcomes of the Act. Because of this, it would be misleading and a fraud upon the community to do otherwise than repeal the original Act and start afresh with new legislation.

Examinator

Your history lesson is irrelevant. The federal parliament recently confirmed what Australia wants out of the Marriage Act and to quote the PM of the day:

"marriage as the `voluntarily entered-into union of a man and a woman to exclusion of all others'"

"We've decided to insert this into the Marriage Act to make it very plain that that is our view of a marriage and to also make it very plain that the definition of a marriage is something that should rest in the hands ultimately of the parliament of the nation....

(It should) not over time be subject to redefinition or change by courts, it is something that ought to be expressed through the elected representatives of the country."

The Act was framed around 'One man and one woman' and to trash that is to trash the Act and start again.

'Turbo charged' - your words, not mine.

Can't you at least pick another word instead of pinching what belongs to man and woman.
If you want to go wooly woofin so be it, but don't bring normal people into it, by trying to take what we believe in.
Have a good think and maybe you can come up with something that is not offensive.
Your lot have destroyed story books, how low do you want to go.

Cornflower: << A person who voices an alternative opinion is by your reckoning a homophobe? >>

It's the content of the opinion that denotes homophobia. In your case, you seem to be in a bit of a lather about the possibility of homosexuals having the same rights to marry as everybody else. Indeed, you're arguing strenuously that they shouldn't - so I'd surmise that there's a fair probability that you're a homophobe.

What are you so afraid of?

Same-sex marriage is legal in quite a few countries. In The Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Spain, Norway, and Sweden "the legal status of same-sex marriages [is] exactly the same as that of opposite-sex marriages", and those societies don't seem to have fallen apart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

What exactly is your objection to gays having the same rights as everybody else?

I was going to stay out of this discussion until I read this:

"That homosexual pairings are not covered by the Marriage Act
is simply because the State chose to regulate, support and
exploit the common natural couplings that work to the
advantage of the community."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3191#75639

Would that it had. When the Howard government, with the shameful support of the opposition, changed the definition in the Marriage Act the advantage of the community was furthest from their minds. This measure was about the advantage of the Coalition in outer-suburban marginal seats with concentrations of evangelical christians.

If the advantage of the community were the government's main concern, it would have legislated to allow same-sex marriages ages ago. As this 2003 article from Time Magazine states:

"Conservatives have long rightly argued for the vital
importance of the institution of marriage for fostering
responsibility, commitment and the domestication of unruly
men."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,460232,00.html

Here on OLO, Andrew Norton wrote last year that:

"The biggest challenge to marriage over the last few decades
has been casual sex and cohabitation, since their
legitimisation took away one of the strongest reasons to
walk down the aisle at a relatively young age. As Jon
Rauch has pointed out, opposing gay marriage actually
strengthens this challenge to marriage, since unless
conservatives also support enforced celibacy they are
conceding that casual sex and cohabitation are acceptable."

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6907

As several people have pointed out above, in response to the case for marriage equality, its opponents are capable of producing only misrepresentations and personal expressions of distaste. If any of them truly have the interests of the community at heart, if any of them truly value love, monogamy and supportive human relationships, then they would be arguing _for_ same-sex marriage rather than spewing personal indignation and lies.

If God didn't make Adam and Steve - Who did?

Perhaps the ‘gay and lesbian’ parade and the media had a lot to do with it. Before this was on air they at least kept it in the closet.

Sorry, but it’s simply not natural for two of the same sex to mate and, the very nature of ‘mating’ is to produce ‘off-spring’.

Now once they achieve this, naturally, then call me and I will reconsider my position.

Marriage and homosexuality were around long before formalised religion. Marriage was established for social harmony and cohesion, primarly for the protection of offspring and to reduce genetic mutated similarities. Homosexuality has been socially outlawed in every society that has good secure foundations to raise children. It is a state institution and though organised by religion in the recent past due to the role of religion in the State. It has nothing to do with religious control, it has to do with good social order.

The rise of same sex paring today indicates a social delima of gender identity in todays society, and will lead to the deterioration of that society.

Hi Philo,
you are not by any chance a fundamentalist or religious hardliner?

Why do you want to ban or dictate, who is allowed or has the right to marry and who not? The earth is not a disc. We have moved on since.

If you are looking at the course of history, most wars were started under religious influence. You therefore will understand, as a argumentum e contrario, that life without those influences would be a much more peaceful one.

Let gay people have a peaceful life, they haven't done anything wrong. Give them a chance, without the old antiquated mindset.
They deserve the same respect then other people as well.

Astutely observed m2catter,
Your argumentum e contrario that life without religious influences would be a much more peaceful one is clearly validated by the peaceful secularist reigns of Stalin and his counterpart Mao compared to life under Islam.
The combined death toll of 100 something million attributed to the secularists is greatly eclipsed by the 270 million attributed to the religion of peace.
That's approximately 170 million bodies more peaceful.
A significant improvement in anyone's books.

m2catter,
You said; Quote, "They deserve the same respect then other people as well".
The legal contract of marriage has nothing to do with respect of other people. We can respect people without marrying them, or they being married. The aspect of respect by the State of persons has no input into the Marriage contract. It is primarly to ensure any offspring of that contract are nurtured and cared for by both partners. People can make arrangements to share the same house and they can draw up a legal contract to cover a split in their relationship or in the case of death. It does not require marriage

Cornflower where did I call you a homophobe ? That comment was directed to someone who is as described.

I merely answered objectively that your presented argument lacked substance.

History tells us which pitfall to avoid.

Just because a political figure smooths his base or is courting the small liberals doesn't mean it's correct. I don't believe that Rudd/ howard/Turnbull/Hockey can speak for the nation on issues like this or even a majority. They are all talking too a narrow percentage of the population who 'might' change their vote.

I might note that you still don't address any of my points and continue with the shock horror which is AN *indicator* of homophobia.

HermanYutic,

Arguing by extremes is the mark of a half baked opinion.
No one to my knowledge is saying that life would be all wisdom, love and light without religion. What is clear is that religion has be a major source for conflict since before the bible times.
Figures by some scholars indicate that it has been the greatest cause/justification for mass misery and violent deaths ever.

Personally My view is that the absence of religion would simply remove one for the causes for mass violence. Being an ingenious species We would find another justification (sic) anyway.

The problem isn't with religion per se, more to do with the need to force others to toe the Dogma line.

Philo
You miss the real purpose (emotional) of marriage today.A contract simply doesn't meet that requirement. "Anyway what's in a name....."
I surmise it's a fear of the unknown.

Tell us where you got those bodycounts for Islam, HermanYutic.

Sancho,
http://www.politicalislam.com/tears/pages/tears-of-jihad/

examinator,
Are you telling me the Basis of the Marriage Act is to protect and enhance the emotional relationships? It is not rather the lawful Act of Marriage they want changed not their emotions protected?

I read recently that gays being denied
marriage rights took to nation-wide
rallies throughout the country. What I don't
understand is that according to surveys over
60% of Australians support same-sex marriage.
So why don't our politicians and lawmakers
sit up and take notice? Is it churches
making a final stand?

If you're into religion, that's fine - but
people today don't have to believe in God
or go to church to get married any more,
so why is religion such a big issue when
we're talking about gays getting married?
We're talking about civil marriage here,
so its a civil rights issue.

We all have gay friends or relatives who pay
their taxes and live according to the law.
Yet when it comes to marriage - the law
suddenly makes gays different from anyone else -
and marriage - the most important commitment
in anyone's life - is forbidden to them.

What sort of a judgement call is that?

Gay people are not stereotypes, they're real
people with real emotions and love for their
partners - and they want to get married for
exactly the same reason as everyone else does.
They're in love. They want to make a commitment to
each other.

I've read some opinions that say -
"Marriage will be devalued." I don't get that.
If more people want to get married, isn't that
good for marriage, doesn't it make it more
valuable in a world were more than 50% of marriages
end in divorce. It doesn't make sense to turn away
people who want to tie the knot.

Marriage is about love and commitment - and if
someone is willing to make that kind of commitment
we should be supporting them.

Gay marriages happen in countries all around the world,
and I'm sure that it will happen in the next 5 to 10
years here in Australia. Those of you against it
happening are, as someone said on another website,
" On the wrong side of history. You mightn't like it,
but guess what, no one will care!"

Foxy

It doesn't do to apply negative labels to people or imply they are out of touch simply because they have a different view.

It is a matter of fact that there is a groundswell of resentment and opposition from heterosexuals to the continuing intrusion of government it their bedrooms and private affairs (no pun intended). There is real concern that such changes have come from 'left field', entirely without mandate and without any consultation with the community.

Where is the evidence in numbers that all or most homosexuals, both gays and lesbians, are/were desirous of having their often flexible and fluid relationships regulated by the State as is being done to (definitely not 'for') heterosexuals?

It seems that those who presume to know what is best for heterosexuals also know what is best for gays and lesbians.
Through changes to the Family Law Act, such changes have already spilled over to homosexual couples.

It has been obvious in this thread that some of the vocal supporters of gay and lesbian relationships to be regulated by the Marriage Act are unwilling to engage in discussion of the pros and cons for homosexuals. However there already have been contentious changes to family law where consultation with the community did not occur and the outcomes have been controversial. Here is a current example:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/k-payout-for-jilted-lover-in-victoria/story-e6frf7l6-1225795350717

It is time that gays and lesbians stepped back apace and took account of what has already changed without any plebiscite to ascertain their wishes and without regard for the effect of the changes on their lifestyle. It is a mistake to be railroaded into more change under the guise of gay rights when the architects of the change are set upon tailoring a suit that superbly fits the few, but would be an uncomfortable and costly straitjacket for everyone else. The faux war about gay marriage is a clever diversion while elites negotiate what they want off stage, out of sight and free of all of that pesky and unnecessary consultation.

Cornflower, we're still waiting for you or anyone else to explain how gay marriage will in any way be bad for Australian society or heterosexual marriage. We know you don't like homosexuality, but we live in an evidence-based society and there is no evidence against gay couples.

Personally, I don't like capsicum and would be happy to see it banned, but I don't pretend that it's a rational or sane restriction to try and force on others.

Gay marriage is going to be law in your lifetime, whether you like it or not. Now would be a good time to examine your assumptions and decide whether the real problem is gay couples or your own unreasoning fear of them.

Also, you might want to be careful about claiming that acts of Parliament represent the will of the people, because you're going to spend a lot of time on OLO arguing the precise opposite.

Dear Cornflower,

In this country,as in many western countries,
marriage has been defined as a religious and
legal commitment between a man and a woman,
as well as the ultimate expression of love.
However, homosexual relationships are increasingly
gaining acceptance in this country; yet these
couples haven't been allowed to marry.

According to surveys and recent polls more than
60% of Australians support same-sex marriage.

I raised the question, "Should we allow gay couples to
legally marry?" because it is an issue that is being
raised in the media - and by gay groups and their
supporters in nation-wide rallies
in major cities throughout the country.
Sooner or later the country will decide on this issue.

While I understand your feelings on this subject - it
will ultimately be up to the majority of Australians
to decide - whether to give the thumbs up to same-sex
marriage or not.

Australians on the whole support the principle of
"live and let live," Tolerance and mutual respect,
whatever their background, is valued.
Most people believe that change should occur
by discussion, peaceful persuasion and the democratic
process. All Australians are supposed
to be equal under the law. Which means that nobody
should be treated differently from anybody else
because of their race, ethnicity, age, gender,
marital status, or disability; or because of their
political or religious beliefs. Government agencies
and independent courts are supposed to treat
everyone fairly. Denying civil marriage to homosexual couples
is treating them unfairly - and is a form of minority
discrimination.

All legislation discriminates and any of it could and often is, challenged over individual 'rights'. Interestingly, such claims are over benefits that can be obtained and rarely over people volunteering to shoulder the responsibilities and encumbrances of being a citizen. One of the few exceptions, where some citizens demanded permission from government to do their duty for their nation, is never celebrated in Australia and is never mentioned (feminists and the Left certainly don't want to know) was the march and demonstration by women outside Sydney's Town Hall in the dark days of WW2. They marched to request active service in the military to aid their menfolk to protect their families and the soil on which they stood.

The example of those women is a far cry from the constant demands of a victim culture for government benefits and 'just because'.

Going back to gay and lesbian marriage, neither you nor anyone else has been able to dispel the arguments I have put forward. When it comes down to the wire three facts are most apparent:

first, democratically elected governments have continued to support and enforce the Marriage Act as it is;

secondly, it is very misleading to claim that gay and lesbian couples do not already have rights because they do and they are covered by the Family Law Act; and

finally, 'rights' cannot be given without taking away the rights of others. The State regulation of homosexual relationships and the benefits that the few have claimed because there is advantage in it for them, have without question changed forever the previously unfettered, fluid and flexible lifestyle that the substantial majority of gays prefer. Did anyone ask them first? Heck no!

Cornflower, according to your own 'arguments', homosexual relationships are already subject to all the regulatory rights and obligations that heterosexual defacto relationships are. However, the State somewhat perversely continues to deny those homosexual couples who wish to marry the right to do so.

You haven't advanced a single argument as to why this should remain the case that isn't essentially homophobic or an exercise in convoluted sophistry.

I'll ask you again - why shouldn't those homosexuals who wish to marry each other be allowed to by the State?

CJ Morgan,

Because our laws are still linked, albeit tenuously, to natural law.

HermanYutic,

What exactly do you mean by "natural law", and how does it pertain to marriage?

I can't think of a single species, other than Homo sapiens, that practises marriage.

C J Morgan

As I have made it abundantly clear the democratically elected government of Australia supports the Marriage Act as it is. If that means that anyone who uphold what the government has decreed then so be it the parliament is filled with homophobes and so is the electorate.

But what democratically elected governments decide wouldn't matter much to a bloke who on another thread opposed universal suffrage, maintaining that people shouldn't be entitled to vote unless they passed a test of 'civics' and whatever. It didn't matter to you that you would exclude many of your fellow countrymen from their right to vote, including many Indigenous people. You have contempt for all who differ with you and your continual insulting labelling of any who differs with you betrays that. Of course your will to disenfranchise people you consider are not as smart as you says the same.

You also misrepresented whether or not I would agree with the formal recognition of gay and lesbian unions. Clearly I don't object and I have said so (and you know it), however I am not in favour as a general principle, of slyly modding existing legislation so that it performs other purposes than those for which the original bill was intended.

There are already examples of legislation where interpretation and amendment by delegates of the Minister have resulted in effects that are arguably the opposite of that intended.

Why not be up-front and admit that the purposes you would like the Marriage Act to serve have absolutely nothing to do with the original intent of it when passed and recently confirmed by parliament?

Honesty in government and in framing, passing and administering legislation may not be important to social pragmatists like you but it sure is to me and many others. So be honest, put up a new Bill and have the facts and courage to defend it.

More hot air and obfuscation from Cornflower - without answering my very simple question.

I'll ask it again - why shouldn't those homosexuals who wish to marry each other be allowed to by the State?

So be honest yourself, put up your real reasons for denying homosexuals the right to marry, and have the facts and courage to defend them.

C J Morgan

You are as predictable as any schoolyard bully with your broken record taunts and insults.

If that is the best you have to offer and you are unwilling to engage with the opinions and argument of others so be it.

No way that most would waste their time playing your parlour games and I am no different to them.

Cornflower,

My question is right on topic and is very straightforward. I don't think any reasonable person would regard it as "taunting" or "bullying". I'm not playing "parlour games", rather I'm speaking out against discrimination on the basis of sexuality.

The fact that you refuse to answer my simple question is very telling, as is your defence of discrimination against homosexuals who want to marry. I'm sure that reasonable, unbiased readers will draw their own conclusions.

Dear Cornflower,

The only constant in life is change.
We may not like it - but it happens
with or without our permission -
and certainly as far as laws are
concerned, especially if there's enough
public support - politicians and law makers
will take notice. In the case of the Marriage
Act - this too will change - in time.

However, why don't you answer the simple question
that CJ has asked you?

CJ Morgan
As a reasonable, unbiased reader I draw my own conclusion that allowing Sad marriage is no different in substance than allowing interspecies marriage, incestuous marriage or polygamous marriage.
After all, if we suspend natural law and claim that anybody has the right to marry whoever they please, then it follows that we cannot object to these other variations on the traditional theme.
This would lead to greater diversity, which we all know is good in and of itself.

Dear Herman,

I've been waiting when someone would raise
the old chestnut of - "if we allow gay marriages -
it would provide a slippery slope in the
legailty of marriage (having multiple
wives or marrying an object could be next et cetera)."
But you need not worry. The laws will develop a
firm definition of what marriage is and what it
includes and excludes.

You can now take your tongue out of your cheek.

Foxy,
I'm surprised that you apparently think that multiple wives should be illegal when the prophet himself
had eleven and permits his zombies to have four each.
Not to mention the 72 virgins allotted his most faithful emulators, people like Major Hasan
(who won't be delighting in his just desserts for a while, as it happens).
Furthermore, your seeming approval of laws which define what marriage should include and exclude,
by definition doesn't sound at all inclusive.
Your inconsistencies notwithstanding, I did find your subtle tongue in cheek pun,
obviously alluding to the homosexual practices of rimming and felching,
to be delightfully sharp if a trifle disrespectful in the context.
I'm surprised you thought you could slip that one past me!

Dear Herman,

You're just a troll - and I'm not
going to feed you.

Foxy,
Accusations of trollery are the refuge of those who can't justify their arguments when someone has the effrontery to point out their inconsistencies.
I thought you were bigger than that.
BTW,
"The laws (already have) develop(ed) a
firm definition of what marriage is and what it
includes and excludes."
You just want to change that definition to suit your ideology, which you can't even support when it is shown to be internally contradictory.
Yours is the "progressive's" equivalent of schoolyard tongue-poking.

Foxy, I have to wonder why you do this. On the topic of same-sex marriage we become like two deaf old codgers roaring mutually incomprehensible nonsense at each other.

This pattern is repeated every time the issue comes up. When you initiated a discussion on the same topic two years ago http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1308 the results were just as polarised, and even less civilised than the current discussion. The comments on Rodney Croome’s article last April http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8779 tell the same story, with mostly the same commenters (including you, HermanYutic?).

Those who value fairness above tradition are apparently incapable of reconciling with those who regard their system of belief as a higher value than civil justice. Irrational repugnance for some sexual practices blinds many people to genuine love. The two sides of this argument are chasms apart, and the hope of finding common ground is minute.

In my view, no-one participating in this discussion holds an opinion amenable to change. We’re all so entrenched in our views that talking to each other on this issue is pointless.

It’s nice of you to keep pushing the case for equality, Foxy, but in this forum it’s pretty futile. I reckon those who want to achieve social change would be better off writing to their Member of Parliament. Those who just want a stoush will probably get a more thrilling kick at the Coogee Bay Hotel http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/03/10/1205125819801.html or Wagga Wagga’s Victoria Hotel http://www.smh.com.au/national/footy-and-alcohol-make-a-volatile-mix-in-waggas-violent-pub-culture-20090220-8dp6.html

In any event, the bitching and name-calling going on here is childish, destructive and very very sad.

HermanYutic <"..As a reasonable, unbiased reader..."?
You must be jesting Herman? With the possible exception of Runner, you would be one of the most unreasonable and biased persons on this site.

Foxy is right. You are a troll.

Foxy, you are fighting a losing battle on the subject of Gay marriage on this site. I admire you for the strength of your convictions though.

We have enough trouble rationally discussing legal procedures like abortion, let alone the currently unavailable legal Gay marriage!

I am amazed none of these blinkered people have advocated stoning for adultery.
Damn, I may just have planted the seed for a mad adultery topic!

Foxy,
Using the basis of your argument,
"All Australians are supposed
to be equal under the law. Which means that nobody
should be treated differently from anybody else
because of their race, ethnicity, age, gender,
marital status, or disability; or because of their
political or religious beliefs. Government agencies
and independent courts are supposed to treat
everyone fairly. Denying civil marriage to homosexual couples
is treating them unfairly - and is a form of minority
discrimination."

Therefore that means we do not discriminate on age, CASE: a 30 year old male who is mutually and passionately in love with an 6 year old boy may sanction that relationship in the Church and State under the act of marriage. The Muslim religion sanctions such in hetrosexual relationships. DO WE DISCRIMINATE?

One primary reason the State records marriages is that it documents the natural line of genetics, Who is a decendant of who, so in cases of determining genetic relationships it is documented. Genetic line is natural law.

For those who want same sex emotional relationships given this status are ignorant of the reasons genetics are recorded. Mariage is not about emotional relationships it is about the State recording the biological family. You register your children as descending from a father and mother a union that is marriage. Marriage entails a mutual sexual relationship between a potential mother and father and is what the vows protect.

Dear Herman,

You're not pointing out "inconsistencies,"
you're simply baiting and provoking to get
a reaction. That is troll behaviour.

I'm not wanting to change the law to suit
my "ideology." What I am trying to do is
have a discussion on the topic.

Finally, I've never had to resort to "tongue-poking"
in school, university, or anywhere else. That's
something you apparently are more familiar with.

Dear Woulfe,

Thanks for your concern. The reason why I raised
this issue is partly explained in my opening post -
and additionally there's been quite a bit of
coverage in the media on the topic. I thought it
would make for an interesting discussion - as there
were so many other threads on political issues and
asylum seekers.

Dear Philo,

In this country - nobody can marry an underage child.
So your reference to the six year old doesn't make
any sense. The marriage law that will be changed will
have inbuilt safeguards and protections - and will be
between consenting adults - harming nobody. The community
will decide as to the changes (if any) it wants made.

An overwhelming amount of research has been done showing
that homosexuality has a biological causation; not a
genetic one, but a biological one.

Gay marriage, as I've stated throughout this thread,
to me is not a religious issue, but a civil rights issue.
The fact is even the church has changed its very strict
rules regarding marriage over the years. For example,
in the past participants to a marriage had to be virgins,
marriage was till death us do part (wasn't optional), and
divorce was impossible, and the participants needed to be
of different sexes. The fact that churches have relaxed some
of these requirements - shows that they are capable of
change. As someone said on another website -

"The biggest threats to the institution of marriage and
indeed our society as a whole comes not from homosexuals
wishing to make a permanent commitment but from single
heterosexuals seeking to avoid them."

Dear Suze,

Always grateful for you insights.

HermanYutic - on the basis of your posts here, you seem to be anything but a "reasonable, unbiased reader", and at any rate you didn't answer my question. What do you mean by "natural law" and how does it pertain to gay marriage?

I think Foxy's characterisation of you seems apposite.

Philo, have you ever heard of adoption, or blended families? You made that stuff about genetics up, didn't you?

CJ Morgan,
From ancient times genetic children had civil rights as part of a family or tribal nation not given to imposters or visitors to the country. These discriminatory positions still apply. We decide who gets benifits from our family, our tax and our nation; and how it is applied.

We discriminate on who votes on the basis of age and citizenship.

Adoption is registered by the state to protect the child by acceptable parents as a benificary of the adopting family. This is a committed contract to love and cherish a child by a married man and woman and this contract is not a marriage. Though in the case of step children the other parent often adopts siblings of the partner whos's father is deceased, or abandoned the child.

CJ Morgan,

Natural law is what homosexual propagandists appeal to when they produce films purportedly showing homosexual behaviour amongst animals.

Natural law is what homosexual propagandists repudiate in the face of incontrovertible evidence that male and female are sexually complementary, whereas male on male and female on female sexual relationships are not.

The best you can do, really, is to argue that people do it therefore it is natural.

This argument can of course be used to justify any behaviour, sexual or otherwise.

The push that we’re now seeing is illustrative of what happens when society starts accepting, at face value, peoples self-diagnoses of their own pathologies.

"Homosexuality is death. I choose life."

I would never say anything so hateful of course.
I leave that to former homosexual activist Michael Glatze.

http://www.narth.com/docs/nicoglatze.html

"I am amazed none of these blinkered people have advocated stoning for adultery"

The difference being that adultery involves at least one person who did not consent to the decision but who may be seriously impacted by the results. I doubt many of those opposed to gay marriage would want to be married to a partner who's sexual interest was homosexual so gay marriage does not take anything from hetrosexuals except a specific meaning of the idea of marriage which has already been pretty well trashed by the way it's treated by hetrosexuals.

R0bert

I'd like to Thank everone for their inputs.
For me however - the thread has run its
course.

Before I go - here's a few quotes that I came across
on the subject, from various websites:

1) "More people have been slaughtered in the name of
religion, than for any other single reason. That,
my friends, that is true perversion."
(Harvey Milk).

2)" If homosexuality isn't natural then neither is ...
flying in airplanes, driving in cars, eating food
you didn't kill yourself, or wiping your butt ..."
(author unknown).

3) "I don't approve of anything that tampers with
natural ignorance."
(Oscar Wilde).

4) "Possibly sometime in the future the day will come
where a person's sexuality will cease to be
disparaged or victimised. Where gayness or its
straight counterpart will at last become redundant.
Hurrah!"
(author unknown).

As far as I can glean from HermanYutic's blather, "natural law" is a meaningless term since she uses it in two contradictory ways in order (presumably) to argue that homosexuality is somehow "unnatural". However, it was HermanYutic who introduced the term to this discussion in the context of claiming that the Marriage Act discriminates against homesexuals because it is linked to "natural law".

I get the general drift though. I think I'll follow Foxy's lead and leave this thread to the unreasonable homophobes and religious fundies, unless someone posts something remarkable. Ciao :)

How appropriate that you close off with a quote from Harvey Milk, paedophile.

As a 33yo he had a sexual relationship with a 16yo and other young men.
"It would be to boyish-looking men in their late teens and early 20s that Milk would be attracted for the rest of his life."
(from his biography, "The Mayor of Castro Street" by Randy Shilts, a homosexual San Francisco Chronicle reporter.)
Shilts quoted Milk...
"As homosexuals, we can't depend on the heterosexual model...
We grow up with the heterosexual model, but we don't have to follow it.
We should be developing our own life-style.
There's no reason why you can't love more than one person at a time. You don't have to love them all the same…"
Sounds like a recipe for committed marriage to me.
Milk refereed for, and also successfully lobbied President Jimmy Carter in favour of, Rev Jim Jones for custody of a 6yo boy.
This child subsequently died in the Jonestown massacre.
Milk lied about being kicked out of the Navy due to discrimination because he thought it made "good copy".
With all his peccadilloes, it's small wonder that Milk is a hero of the lunatic fringe.
Sorry if I'm tampering with your natural ignorance.

Dear Herman,

I gave several quotes - Harvey Milk's was only
one amongst the several. It's interesting that
you singled his out.

The reason I chose the quote
was it's content - not because of who said it.

If you note some of the other quotes were from
unknown authors - again, chosen because of their
content.

Thank you for your added "information" about Harvey Milk -
you have me at a disadvantage there.

I only know
Milk to have been a homosexual activist who became involved
in politics in San Francisco. He was shot by a political
opponent. Sean Penn received an oscar for his portrayal
of Milk in a recent movie.

This thread by the way is about gay marriage - not pedophiles.
(Different subject).

If you're so interested in the topic of pedophilia,
as your having read Milk's book indicates,
why don't you start your own thread on it?

Just a thought ...

Foxy,

I think my Harvey Milk quote has relevance to the SSM debate:

"As homosexuals, we can't depend on the heterosexual model...
We grow up with the heterosexual model, but we don't have to follow it.
We should be developing our own life-style.
There's no reason why you can't love more than one person at a time.
You don't have to love them all the same…"

I would suggest that his concept of relationships (and marriage, by extension)
has more resonance with homosexuals than your imaginings would.

But I take your point that a thread on the links between homosexuality
and paedophilia would make for interesting debate.

Dear Herman,

Thanks for your contributions to this
discussion. As I stated earlier - I
didn't know the details of Harvey Milk's
life. But, I will go to my regional library and
take out the book by Shilts that you
mentioned. I wonder if he's the same author
who wrote, "And the Band played On." ?
(Explaining the AIDS epidemic).
It will be interesting to find out.

Anyway, Thanks again - and see you on other threads.

Foxy, when you wrote ' Must we only recognise marriages
between a man and a woman?', I wonder if you included children and animals with your 21st Century thoughts. Or even machines (I love my car).

Every time that a concession is given, another is wanted. Dennis Ferguson is waiting.

Dear Austin,

Please read my posts on this thread and you'll
get the in depth answer to your question.

The short answer is - No - I'm not suggesting
anything of the kind and frankly I'm surprised
that you'd think I would. A marriage is a
commitment between two consenting adults. And
of course laws and safeguards should be put in
place with a firm definition of what a marriage
is, other wise as you suggest absurd options are
endless.

I've stated my arguments on this thread and I
don't want to elaborate any further on the topic.
Austin - as I suggested to Herman in an earlier
post - start your own thread on pedophilia -
if you feel it would make an interesting discussion.

Foxy,

I find it bizarre that you believe that you can redefine marriage from
" A marriage is a commitment between (a man and a woman)."
to
"A marriage is a commitment between two consenting adults."
and then have the audacity to imagine that nobody else should be able to redefine marriage in any way they see fit.

You grant yourself the "right" to redefine marriage and then deny that same "right" to anyone else.

Either that or you don't believe that you are redefining marriage, which is equally bizarre.

Whatever happened to reason, logic, commonsense, etc?

I'm sure you're a good person, after reading your postings,
but why don't you use your brain to evaluate what your heart tells you?

Dear Herman,

It was the
traditional Marriage Act- that stated that
marriage was only between a man and a woman.

Same-sex marriage is a hot topic of debate in
politics in Australia and globally. That's the
reason I started this thread - to bring it up
as a topic for discussion. I certainly didn't
expect to be attacked for doing so.
We should all be mature enough to have
discussions on a variety of subjects, including this
one.

I realise that homosexual relationships pose an
alternative and therefore are seen as a potential
threat to the present social system, which
depends so much on the heterosexual nuclear family
and traditional gender roles.

Part of the "moral argument" against same-sex marriage
is that marriage has always been between men and
women, as you pointed out. This historical argument
implies that history, somehow, provides a moral high
ground.

Similar arguments were once made against inter-racial
marriage, sentiments that would be publicly expressed
today only by racists.

A decision to marry is a deeply personal choice.
The Australian government prevents same-sex couples
from making that choice for themselves - simple
because they are same-sex.

The Senate Legal & Constitutional Committee Hearing on
Same-Sex Marriage was heard in Melbourne, Monday, November
9th 2009, as part of the inquiry into the Marriage
Amendment Bill. Opinions for both sides were given a
chance to put their case forward. The findings will be
handed down on November 26th 2009.

It's the first time in Australian history that a Senate
Inquiry has held a hearing into the issue of same-sex
marriage. Whether this Hearing is setting a path for
the future - we'll see at the end of November.

Herman, Thanks for your compliment ( - that you think
I'm a nice person). "It's what's inside that counts,"
as my father used to tell me. And, it's what my husband
and I try to pass onto our children. What is important
is the content of our hearts and minds, or what's
often described as character.

Enjoy your evening.

Foxy,

Your arguments are fundamentally flawed.

The "civil rights" strategy employed by activists to convince people like you that opposing homosexual marriage
is analogous to opposing inter-racial marriage is not accepted by the vast majority of african-americans.
This is reflected in their 70% support of Proposition 8 in California (it passed at 52%).
Obama knew this, which is why he pretended to support male-female marriage in his election campaign.
Most african-americans know that race is immutable and homosexuality is not.

"A decision to marry is a deeply personal choice.
The Australian government prevents (choose your sexual behaviour) couples
from making that choice for themselves - simply
because they are (choose your sexual behaviour)."
You still single out homosexuals for inclusion while excluding other sexual behaviours and I still can't work out why.

Activists rely on ignorance (and goodwill) by claiming genetic causation of homosexuality.
This has now been thoroughly debunked as you seem to be admitting.
You mention biological causation of homosexuality but
many pathologies have biological roots.

Having worked as a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst for many years with homosexuals who wanted to leave the lifestyle,
Dr Jeffrey Satinover's viewpoint is more informed than that of the vast majority:
http://www.narth.com/docs/pieces.html

How fascinating to see full-blown homophobia in flight.

Quite remarkable, really :)

HermanYutic,
Well it is obvious CJ is a beaten man he has no contribution to the debate, only emotive name calling.

It is notable that lesbian couples have artificial penisis, so it is obvious they know what should be natural sexual behaviour.

Philo,
CJ Morgan's response is the first and last refuge of the "progressive",
designed to cow their opponent into silence.....
Racist!!
Homophobe!!
Sexist!!
Islamophobe!!
Pick a topic, pick the corresponding epithet.

At present in Melbourne its 37 degrees plus -
and I've got a Cemetery to visit this afternoon
with a mother who's suffering from dementia - so
I can't afford to be distracted by anything else
at the moment.

All I'll say is that I really don't see how
allowing same-sex couples to get married hurts
anyone else. Marriage brings so much joy, not to
mention for families and friends. Every mum wants
to see her son or daughter get married. It shouldn't
make any difference is her kid's gay.

Anyway, as I've stated previously I'm now
bowing out of this discussion - - flawed or not -
Herman, Philo, and others, those are my feelings -
and we'll simply have to agree to disagree on this
issue. I respect your opinions, I expect you to return
the same courtesy to me.

People have some choice over who they marry, at least those involved in inter-racial marriages probably have some options within their own racial grouping who they could be attracted to, gays don't generally get that luxury.

In both cases if you don't like the mix don't do it yourself, if you do like the mix but your religion does not allow it change religions.

R0bert

I'm not homophobic - houses don't scare me.

Is dementia hereditary?

I'm going to call "foul" on this.

Foxy: >>Must we only recognise marriages between a man and a woman?<<

Austin Powerless: >>I wonder if you included children and animals with your 21st Century thoughts. Or even machines (I love my car).<<

Foxy: >>No - I'm not suggesting anything of the kind and frankly I'm surprised that you'd think I would. A marriage is a commitment between two consenting adults.<<

HermanYutic: >>You grant yourself the "right" to redefine marriage and then deny that same "right" to anyone else.<<

The point AP and HY carefully overlook is that "man and woman", "man and man" and "woman and woman" are all subsets of "consenting adults".

Children, animals and Austin Powerless' car, are not.

So the suggestion that there is a parallel between Austin Powerless' suggestion and Foxy's is specious.

It's the old Boaz/Polycarp argument, rehashed. If you don't have Jesus as your moral compass, it follows automatically that you condone paedophilia and bestiality.

Codswallop.

Pericles,
Obviously you do not live in a real world where these things are practised and approved of and frequently promoted.

Pericles,

I wasn't going to bring incest into it but seeing as you insist:

The point you carefully overlook is that "father and adult daughter", "mother and adult son", "father and adult son" and "mother and adult daughter" are all subsets of "consenting adults".

Pericles,

Silly me limiting it to hetero and homo versions of Oedipus and Electra:

The point you carefully overlook is that "adult brother and adult sister", "adult brother and adult brother"
and "adult sister and adult sister" are all subsets of "consenting adults".

I suppose I could also list all the various possible menages a trois, quatre, cinq, etc,
made up of "consenting adults" of course, but I'll leave that to you.

I don't know how many incarnations "HermanYutic" has had on OLO, but I suspect that her last one was "KMB" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=53883&show=history Essentially my suspicion is based on the topics she chooses to address and the tone in which she argues them.

Take a look at these strikingly similar posts:
KMB http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8985#142708 and
HY http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3193#75561

The range of issues that the two personae address is an uncannily close match. In addition to Muslims,
- "natural law":
KMB http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8779#140468
HY http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3191#75874

- so-called "ex-gays":
KMB http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2573#58043
HY http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3191#75981

- Obama:
KMB http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2756#62053
HY http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9656#154946

- incest:
KMB http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2573#57677
HY http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3191#76235

- a reliance on anti-gay sites like narth.com, americansfortruth.com/ and worldnetdaily.com

- an unhealthy obsession with other people’s sexual practices.

So what's the point? Granted this is all pretty circumstantial, and since it's impossible to prove a negative, it is unlikely that KMB will be demonstrating that HY is someone else. Still, it's interesting to show that these characters have absolutely nothing new or original to offer to OLO forums. In an endless loop, they spout filthy prejudice against minorities, and they attempt to "justify" their bile with dodgy "science" and tabloid lies. Whether one individual or more, strung together they are forming a conga line of bitter malcontents.

They don't express their views in forums where they could actually achieve something - lawmakers and policy advisors are pretty good at spotting and dismissing the zealots. Their mission is to provoke and enrage, but never, ever to contribute. They do it anonymously because this is stuff you would never want your Mum to know about.

(continued from previous)

In any event, there's absolutely no point in engaging them. No doubt I will be accused of trying to 'shut down the debate', when in fact there is no debate - the people on one side are doing their best to be civilised in the face of the putrid claims coming from the other. As apparently the only gay person posting in this discussion, I can say categorically that it does get a bit tiring dodging the filth being thrown at homosexuals.

As I indicated above, it's best to ignore the HermanYutics of this world. If KMB can be regarded as a predictor of HY's behaviour, she will insist on having the last word: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8779#141513

I say leave her to it, and let's move off to a topic less beset by primitive intolerance.

Dear Pericles and Woulfe,

I was determined to stay away from this thread -
however I feel responsible for all this current
unpleasantness. I started this thread, as I stated
earlier - to have a discussion on the topic due
to it being so very topical in the media at the
moment.

I didn't expect some of the responses that have
appeared.

Austin asked if dementia is hereditary. I really
don't know. However, my mother has lived a full life,
she's in her eighties. If I live that long,
without losing it, I think I'll be very lucky.

Herman brought up the topic of incest - which is
not relevant to this thread.
I'm sure that any intelligent person knows that acts
of sexual penetration are prohibited between parents
and children, other lineal descendants or step-children
and between brothers and sisters and half brothers and
sisters. Consent is not a defense under the law. All
these acts are criminal offenses and carry severe
penalties.

If Herman is unaware of these facts any regional library
service has Law Handbooks in their Reference collection
and he could be given all the relevant details.

I suppose that some people just like to stir, and provoke.
As you suggested - best to move on to other threads.
This one's no longer achieving anything constructive.

Well spotted, woulfe.

I decided a couple of days ago to not feed this troll/sockpuppet, and to leave it to mutter away to its homophobic cohorts.

Having said that, ciao!

wuolfe,

I'm honoured to think that you compare me to KMB, having now read some of her/his posts.
Thanks for the tip.
It's difficult to find commonsensical viewpoints.
You would be more productive, however, putting your sleuthing toward proving that terrorist Bill Ayers
in fact authored Barack Obama's "auto"biography, seeing as you have an investigative bent (no pun intended).
Imagine someone thinking that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Where could they have gotten that outlandish idea?
Imagine someone thinking that a child would be better off with a father and a mother.
They must be evil!
Imagine someone thinking that homosexuality is unnatural.
Damn the health statistics!
Imagine someone talking about other sexual philias in an argument predicated on sexual diversity.
Its not polite.
Imagine someone hateful enough to raise those points in a debate over SSM.
Can't see the context myself either.
No, we're all supposed to roll over on one of the most bizarre and radical propositions in human history.
Who's a zealot?

Please somebody, don't let me have the last word.

FACT: When you are beaten in the argument of a debate you begin to attack the person with emotive name calling.

Marriage is recorded by the State to keep descendants for citizenship purposes. Demonstrate the purpose and need of the State recording same sex relationships when there can never be descendants. Are they just recording committed sexual relations betweeen adults? What do we want them to register / record?

I've found an excellent article that sums
up the gay marriage issue in Australia.
It can be accessed at:

http://www.actnow.com.au/Opinion/No_argument_against_samesex_rights.aspx

Here are just some quotes:

"In a secular democracy there is simply no valid argument
against same-sex rights."

"To term opposition to same-sex marriage as having an argument
is to flatter their conservative ideals unnecessarily, for there is
nothing to validate this explicit discrimination which outlaws
same-sex marriage that can be substantiated in a secular
democracy... The 'arguments' against same sex marriage generally
take the predictable format...that homosexuality is inherently
wrong, as such it threatens the sanctity of marriage and is going
to contribute to that inevitable moral decay of our society besides,
the whole point of marriage is to make babies and we all know
homosexuals can't do this...Duh."

"Wrong. Homosexuality is not inherently wrong, according to our
secular society, marriage is hardly sacred and the moral decay
of our society is far more likely to be at the hands of people in
the medieval age waving the unfounded-political-opinions-based-on-
unvalidated-conservative-or-religious-ideas trying to infect our
supposedly secular government with personal pet hates and throw away
those old fashioned democratic ideals of equality, rationality, and
freedom. And, as if it matters, homosexuals can now make and raise
babies just as well as Jack & Jill."

Finally:

"If you're still concerned, look at all those countries who have
already implemented gay rights. They're doing OK. There have been
no apocalypses, no moral cringes based on 'well, if homosexuals
have rights, I guess anything goes!' Does Australia really want
to be the last bastion of good old fashioned anti gay and anti
equality 'moral' values? To put it lightly, if you're not
interested in gay rights, you're not interested in authentic
equality or the moral upkeep of our society.
At what point did private relationships only become valid when
a (conservative) government decreed them so?"

"Marriage is recorded by the State to keep descendants for citizenship purposes." - Philo I've not looked the historical reasons for the state keeping marriage records but if that is the case those who chose it had little understanding of genetics and human behaviour. Both now and throughout history a percentage of people have conceived children with someone who they are not married to. If that's the purpose then it's not a very effective way of meeting the goal.

I've not looked afresh at the issues around marriage following the changes to defacto laws but my impression is that the uncertain nature of the latter leaves some issues outstanding. The right to be treated as next of kin in medical crisis etc (decisions about care, visitation rights etc) are issues where a clear spousal status can be very important and where a clear decision to that effect and a state record of that decision is important.

In other areas such the uncertainty around defacto status might complicate (and make much more expensive) issues such as settlement of will's etc.

Have you ever had older friends or relatives marry? Would you deny them the right to formally recognise their commitment to one another and the place they give the other in their lives because having children is no longer wise and or practical?

I suspect that we might be better off if the term marriage was taken out of the debate, that state recognition of the chosen arrangements between adults was given another title without the emotional loading which comes with marriage.

R0bert

If as you seem to think, gays and lesbians really want what goes on in their their bedrooms regulated by the State, why hasn't there been a rush to take up Centrelink's landmark recognition of 1 July 2009 - to advise Centrelink of their committed relationships?

Contrary to what you seem to think, there has not been a rush to register. Why not, if public recognition of their commitment is what gays and lesbians crave?

Recent changes to Commonwealth legislation mean that for the first time people in same-sex relationships may be regarded as living in a “de facto relationship”. This means that gay, lesbian and opposite-sex couples will have equal rights and entitlements under the amended laws, effectively removing discrimination.
Same-sex de facto relationships are now recognised under Social Security and Family Assistance law, with effect from 1 July 2009. This means that you are now required to advise Centrelink if you are in a same-sex “de facto” relationship.
If you are assessed to be a member of couple, your partner’s income and assets will be taken into account and your entitlements may be reduced or cancelled. Some people in same-sex de facto relationships may have new or higher entitlements because income and assets test thresholds are higher for couples.

http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/individuals/ssr_custinfo.htm

Would you disagree with government using the numbers registered with Centrelink as a reliable indication of the incidence of gay and lesbian partners in the community? If not why not?

RObert

The above was replying to Foxy - I often leave a window open while attending to business and occasionally do not think to check for other replies.

I agree with your last sentence. A concern I have as you may have read is that the amendments proposed by Foxy to the Marriage Act overturns the whole concept of marriage for which this Act was drafted and recently confirmed. I have explained my thinking early in the thread on 9 Nov 2009:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3191&page=11

Apart from that, I also contend that the whole area of recognition f and definition of de facto partnerships has moved ahead of what the electorate might want and there has been a dearth of community consultation on it. Democracy is not limited to voting in elections and on such significant change the electorate has a right to be fully consulted. There are well tested models for obtaining community participation and no, the occasional conferencing of 'experts' and representatives of vested interests is not one of them.

Foxy,
You're very wrong.
You dismiss thousands of years of marriage between man and woman as not being validated
and then you validate SSM by claiming no adverse effects.
Societal recognition of such behaviours only creates more problems.
There is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that children raised in homosexual households
are much likelier to engage in homosexual behaviour.
Homosexuals in the Netherlands have won the "right" to cruise in public parks,
where warning signs are now erected to warn others that they are entering a public homosex zone.
Police in Britain have been directed not to interfere with homosexuals having sex in public places
because it interferes with their human rights.
Paedophiles in the Netherlands are so emboldened that they have their own political advocacy group and magazine.
Homosexuals in California openly engage in public sex at such "pride" events as the Folsom Street Fair, while police stand by and watch because to interfere would be discriminatory.
Look it up. That's what the internet is for.
Homosexual marriage is the back door (if you'll pardon the pun) to all these activities.
Validating homosexual marriage is validating homosexual behaviour and the above are just some examples of the consequences.
They fit together like a fist in a ......
You may think these manifestations of homosexual behaviour are progress but there a still a few hateful homophobes who don't want our society to go down this road.

Cornflower if your main concern is about changes to existing legislation alter the meaning or expanding the target group I disagree. If it's about an objection to the idea that people can find themselves in a relationship with many of the same legal consequences as marriage without explicitly choosing the change in status of the relationship then I agree.

It's my understanding that in the past the right to own property was quite selective which is now much less selective, the right to vote has been a series of steps which have widened the list of who can vote etc. I don't think that the whole consept of property rights or voting rights needed to be reworked or seperate new acts created to cover the widening of the target groupings. I don't like it if it's done by subterfuge but a call for legalisation of gay marriage is not sneaky, it's a call for a very clear change.

R0bert

Dear Cornflower,

Rhiahnon Kennedy in her article,
"Equal love: same-sex marriage rights..."
says:

"The federal ALP government is resisting calls
to end its discrimination against same-sex
relationships. It has tried to deflect criticism
for its failure to overturn the marriage ban by
pointing to new laws passed in November 2008 that
ended some forms of discrimination against same-sex
de facto couples."

"The changes came about through years of serious
campaigning by the gay community and its allies.
The new laws mean that same-sex de facto couples
now have many of the same legal financial and
work-related rights as straight couples. Things
previously not available to same-sex couples,
such as child support and bereavement benefits,
are now available. This is an advance and has sparked
renewed confidence and hope in the gay rights
movement. However, the changes have also highlighted
the lack of full equality for same-sex couples."

"The recognition of same-sex relationships by Centrelink,
(as you mentioned), for example, means newly recognised
couples are now subject to joint income assessments.
For many, this has led to significant cuts in Centrelink
payments."

"Same-sex couples are equal enough to be screwed out of
Centrelink payments like anyone else, but not equal
enough to marry. Therefore for most same-sex couples,
the government's limited changes appear hypocritical
and have simply rubbed salt in the wound.
Nothing but full equality will do."

I hope this answers your question.

As the previous website that I gave in my earlier
post tells us:

"The fact that homosexuality is wrong is a religious
argument and this is where it should stay, in
religion. However as a religious argument it cannot and
should not be used to justify discrimination against
gay couples in the political sphere. If we are a
country governed by a secular democracy, than we should
both support this, and start acting like it."

People who argue that same-sex marriage is a form of
perversion - should take another look at our so
called "moral" society today, and male-female
relationships as they really exist instead of judging
couples who want to make a commitment and marry.

HermanYutic <"There is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that children raised in homosexual households are much likelier to engage in homosexual behaviour."

Where is that evidence Herman? Show us some reputable sites that demonstrate this outrageous statement. I don't want to see any statistics provided to us by any church group or other biased group either.

Bringing up the subject of pedophilia as a consequence of homosexuality is also very wrong. There are no official statistics that show any link here at all.

All these tired, continually trotted out lies by religious fanatics and homophobes are so boring they are laughable.

RObert, "If it's about an objection to the idea that people can find themselves in a relationship with many of the same legal consequences as marriage without explicitly choosing the change in status of the relationship then I agree."

As you may have seen, a major bone of contention I have with changes that have been foisted upon heterosexual 'couples' (I use the inverted commas because not all see themselves as couples which is the problem). Unintentional bigamy is a complication that can arise, resulting in the married partner losing the normal rights of marriage. However I discussed that earlier in my replies.

As I see it and I am sure most of the electorate would agree, the regulation of personal relationships has moved in directions that are not supported nor wanted and are the opposite of what people want.

Now the change has been foisted on homosexuals as well and again without the direct consultation that should occur in a democracy where such serious change is contemplated.

Foxy
None of that addresses the issues I have raised.

suzeonline,
Why do men pick on young boys for sex? Is'nt it to committ homosexual acts? They are homosexuals! Homosexuality is not the person but the act of anal intercourse. It is this act that is condemned by society because of its disease causes and the person who continually performs the act of anal sex is a homosexual. Every day in the news we have charges being laid against men having molested young boys for sex. Do not tell me that peadophiles are not homosexuals! If not; what is the act they perform on young males?

suzeonline,

The problem here, of course, is that you
"don't want to see any statistics provided...
by any church group or other biased group either."
Biased meaning anybody you don't agree with, presumably.

Nevertheless....

homosexualising children
http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_notinthebest.html

homosexuality and paedophilia
http://www.narth.com/docs/pedophNEW.html

You describe my claim that SSM homosexualises children as an "outrageous statement".

It's curious that you should consider it "outrageous" when I would have thought that the homosexualisation of children
would be no better or worse than the heterosexualisation of children in your worldview.

Dear Cornflower,

I did answer your issue of why same-sex couples
did not rush into Centrelink to register.
Kindly read my previous post again.

Foxy

A rant by a no-name green left justifying fraud is no answer. No responsibility, no accountability, just gimmie some benefits.

It is much more likely that many homosexuals, like heterosexuals, disagree with and reject the State regulation and interpretation of their relationship status that you and some others would like to force upon them.

Many gays and lesbians rejoice in the freedom they have had to do what they like when they like and they are damned if they ever wanted or needed you or anyone else like you deciding what is best for them. How many and of what gender really want the State to tell them they are in 'de facto relationships' when that is far from being their intent?

What qualifies you to set yourself up as knowing what is best for them and demand that all homosexual relationships be scrutinised and regulated by the State? Another case where the gain of the few is put above the rights of the majority.

Philo what do you call an adult paedophile who has sex with a child of the opposite gender? Homosexual does not seem to fit.

It's telling that homosexuals are attacked on mass because some men like sex with boys but I doubt many of us would accept the same condemnation of hetrosexuals for similar reasons.

R0bert

Some truly remarkable stuff posted while I've been off fishing for the day.

Speaking of which, this afternoon I was sitting on the riverbank, reading the paper and enjoying a cold beer, when along came a mob of cows and calves to say hello. After I'd shooed them away from my esky, I was given to thought about this discussion when one cow mounted another cow and simulated bovine bonking. There were 9 cows and 5 calves in this mob, and I was given to recall HermanYutic/KMB's claim about "natural law" (which s/he declined to define when challenged about it). "Natural Law" seems to me in this case to refer to group 'marriage' between a bunch of females and their offspring, and may include simulated sex between adult females.

Perhaps fortunately, I caught a Yellowbelly, which distracted me from the climax of the whole drama. By the time I looked again, the whole mob had settled down and wandered further down the creek.

Phil - sorry to burst your bubble, but gays get up to a lot more than the anal sex upon which you seem fixated. Hell, there are even gay women. Have you ever heard of oral sex?

Cornflower - just admit it, you're an old homophobe.

R0bert,
Its all to do with the relative propensity of the population, which points to a pathology.
The problem of child sexual abuse in the Catholic church was 81% male on male.
Out of a 2% minority this seems excessive, don't you think?
Paekida...
NAMBLA...
These groups are fighting for the legitimacy of man/boy relationships
(pardon while I puke).
The Journal of Homosexuality openly airs their viewpoints.
Where are the man/girl activists (ignoring the Islamic stance on child marriage, if you will)?

Dear Cornflower,

Do your own research if you don't like the references
I'm citing.
There are heaps of websites out there that you can
google on the topic of - same-sex marriage in
Australia. According to recent surveys more than 60%
of Australians approve of the recognition of same-sex
marriage.

The national campaigns and rallies, including the
Senate Hearings recently held in Melbourne that I
cited in an earlier post - should indicate to you
just what the majority of the Gay Community
is striving for in this controversial debate.

The findings of the Senate Hearings held here in
Melbourne shall be released at the end of this
month. As I said previously - it will be
interesting to see just what they decide and what
recommendations if any are made.

Robert,
The act is sex with the same gender - homo - sexual. A person who has desires of sex for the same gender. Children also have gender, both male and female. In some societies female children are betrothed to adult males, in that society they do not consider them of criminal mind. You call them here paedophiles because our society identifies them as criminal. Change the values of the society and what is criminal changes. Now apply the same social attitude to same sex relationships.

In our society there are those families that do not have conscience about age discrimination and within those families children are sexually used, i.e. aboriginal NT.

CJ Morgan I grew up on a dairy and worked dairies for 39 years of my life, and when a cow is in season if there are no bulls in the herd the cows will mount a cow on season, but put a bull in the herd and the bull will do the mounting. The cow in season actually desires a bull to mount her not another cow. However if there are two bulls in the herd of cows you will not find one bull mounting the other. If the cow is on season the bulls are inclined to fight for supremacy to mount the cow on season. This is natural, two bulls engaging in sexual acts is not.

Are you telling me homosexual men engage in oral sex? Are you telling me because they do they ought to be married, and have this relationship recorded by the State?

Philo: << Are you telling me homosexual men engage in oral sex? >>

While it may come as something of a shock to you, many indeed do - as do heterosexual men and women, and undoubtedly lesbians. But that has nothing to do with marriage.

It's interesting that nowhere among the convoluted, disingenuous and/or hateful guff posted here by the homophobic contingent is there to be found a direct answer to my very simple question to be found, i.e.

Why shouldn't homosexual couples who wish to marry be allowed to do so?

While I'm at it, HermanYutic never answered my question as to what s/he means by "natural law", and what it has to do with marriage.

CJ Morgan,
"Why shouldn't homosexual couples who wish to marry be allowed to do so?"
Why should less than 2% of the population redefine the marriage institution just because their behaviour excludes them from it?
Why should kindergarteners be served up the palpable nonsense that two men "marrying" is just the same as a man and a woman marrying?
Why should society sanction the deliberate deprivation of children of any possibility of having a mother and a father?
Why should children be taught that a lifestyle fraught with health risks is an equally valid alternative?
Why should children be taught that anal sex between two men is just as normal and natural as vaginal sex between a man and a woman when there is mountains of data to quantify the health risks?
Why shouldn't incestuous couples, trios, etc, who wish to marry be allowed to do so?
Why shouldn't menages a trois, quatre, cinq, etc, who wish to marry be allowed to do so?
Why shouldn't any consenting combination who wish to marry be allowed to do so?

Hermanyutic, couldn't you come up with some more credible sites denouncing homosexuality than the two mad American sites you gave us?

I did read through them, and I actually laughed out loud at the announcement that they had books and seminars for sale outlining how to 'heal' homosexuality! Yeah right!
(NARTH site sells- "Healing Homosexuality: Case Stories of Reparative Therapy." by Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.)

The two sites rave on about how most homosexuals were sexually abused as children, and this was why they 'turned out gay'.
Well what about all those gay people who weren't abused as children? How did their sexual orientation come about?

I personally know of many gay people in this situation who were also brought up in loving 2 parent, Christian households.
How on earth did they 'become' homosexual then Herman and Philo?

Do you guys even know any gay people personally? There are good and bad people of all sexual orientations.

Many male paedophiles molest little girls- that doesn't sound like homosexuality should be linked to pedophilia?

Many male priests and brothers who were convicted of molesting the boys in their care did so because they mostly only had male children in their care.
The girls were usually in schools and institutions run by female carers.

Come on guys, open your' minds to the reality of homosexuality, and just get on with your own lives, and leave the gay people to their lives in peace.

Pericles, I was being facetious, but, have you seen my car?

The NO's have it, then.

Suze, HY is just regurgitating the narth.com lies. They’ve all been soundly refuted, but some people are impervious to the truth.

The Senate’s recent inquiry into the proposed amendment to the Marriage Act received around 29,000 submissions, showing if nothing else that this is an issue of great interest to Australians.

The Inquiry website has a selection of these submissions http://aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/legcon_ctte/marriage_equality/submissions/sublist.htm The submission from Australian Marriage Equality addresses, in turn, all of the following objections to same-sex marriage:

<quote from table of contents>

5. The case against reform

Objections regarding perceived characteristics [of] marriage:
a) The definition of marriage
b) Marriage is an unchanging institution
c) Historical tradition and the cross-cultural experience
d) Religion
e) The freedom of religious officials and institutions will be violated
f) Procreation
g) Gender complimentarity
h) Marriage will be diminished, demeaned, degraded or destroyed
i) Harm to families and children
j) The slippery slope
k) Equality is opposed by key constituencies

Objections regarding perceived characteristics of same-sex relationships:
l) Same-sex relationships are shorter, less happy, less stable and less committed
m) We should not radically redefine marriage for a tiny number of people
n) Most same-sex couples do not want to marry and are happy as they are

<end quote>

You can access it here: http://aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/legcon_ctte/marriage_equality/submissions/sublist1/Sub_m90.pdf The whole submission is worth reading but if you want to read just the section addressing the case against reform, it starts on page 33. I think you’ll find that it answers all of KMB/HY’s objections, and more.

The Castan Centre for Human Rights Law submission is also worth a read http://aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/legcon_ctte/marriage_equality/submissions/sublist1/Sub_m87.pdf (and it’s shorter that the Australian Marriage Equality one).

At the risk of stating the bleedin' obvious, you haven't actually given a reason why the foul should not have been called.

Austin Powerless: >>I wonder if you included children and animals with your 21st Century thoughts. Or even machines (I love my car).<<

Pericles: >>"man and woman", "man and man" and "woman and woman" are all subsets of "consenting adults". Children, animals and Austin Powerless' car, are not.<<

Philo came back with the nonsense statement that:

>>Obviously you do not live in a real world where these things are practised and approved of and frequently promoted.<<

Oh really? By whom are these "practised and approved of and frequently promoted", Philo? Even taking into account that Austin Powerless was joking about his car? (Actually, given his alias, maybe he is the car in question?)

HermanYutic tries the bait-and-switch tactic.

>>The point you carefully overlook is that "father and adult daughter", "mother and adult son", "father and adult son" and "mother and adult daughter" are all subsets of "consenting adults".<<

Once again, for clarity: children, animals and Austin Powerless' car, are not.

>>I suppose I could also list all the various possible menages a trois, quatre, cinq, etc, made up of "consenting adults" <<

I'm sure you could, HermanYutic. You clearly obsess about these things.

I notice also that you also bring up NAMBLA...

>>Paekida...NAMBLA...These groups are fighting for the legitimacy of man/boy relationships<<

...are you deliberately channeling Boaz/Polycarp? He was obsessed by these weirdos as well.

What you don't make clear is what relevance they have to the subject at hand.

Thanks for that info Woulfe, I was beginning to wonder if I was fighting a one-person battle against insurmountable, mad websites!

After reading some of those insane US sites, I reckon if Australia agrees to legalize Gay marriage, we could be under threat of war from them!

At the end of the day, I really don't see how Gay Marriage is ever going to get passed in this country, unless the Americans and British go first.

Dear Herman,

This is for your information...

You claim that "only 2%" of the population is gay
and are therefore unworthy of civil rights.

Two percent of the Australian population is a lot
of people, over 400,000. More people than attend
the Anglican church services every week. It's a
crowd of people that would fill five MCGs!
(Melbourne Cricket Ground).

By way of comparison the entire membership of the
(Pentecostal) Assemblies of God denomination - which
provides support to groups like the Australian Christian
Lobby and the Family First - totals only 160,000.
(Muriel Porter, 'Moderates drowned out by religious right
shrill,' Melbourne Age, 30 Mar. 2005).

I'm sure that these Christian organisations wouldn't be
calling for tiny Christian sects to be stripped of
government money to run their own schools on the basis of
their size.

Besides, many gays would never declare the true nature
of their sexuality for fear of religious and
other persecutions.
Statisticians themselves (Australian Bureau of Statistics)
acknowledge this problem:

"The Australian Bureau of Statistics recognises the
limitations of its own information. In its study into
same-sex couples for the '2005 Year Book Australia,'
statisticians acknowledged people's 'reluctance to
identify as being in a same-sex defacto marriage and
lack of knowledge that same-sex relationships couple
counted as such in the census.' (Annette Binger,
'Happy Family,' Sunday Life, 27 March 2005, 22).

There's a book that may be quite informative for you -
It's called:

"Doing It Down Under: The Sexual Lives of Australians."
by Juliet Richters and Chris Rissel. (paperback).
Allen & Unwin Academic (Oct. 28, 2005).

It's the most comprehensive survey ever of Australia's
sexual lives and habits.

Julie Richters has worked in sex research and education
for more that 20 years and Chris Rissel has worked in
all aspects of health promotion research and practice
with a focus on sexual health.

It's quite revealing - and educational.

"Moderates drowned out extreme left shrill"
Foxy,
There are likely at least as many Muslims in Australia as there are homosexuals.
Shouldn't we then legalise polygamous marriage?
If not, why not?
They would fill just as many cricket grounds.
You might not want to pack them into the same stadiums though or there could be trouble.
BTW, what's depriving people of educational funding got to do with SSM?

Thanks to Herman/KMB for providing a veritable litany of homophobic lies and distortions. At least s/he's more honest than others who disingenuously pretend that their opposition to gay marriage is based on protecting gay people from State interference.

I'm thinking that a variation of Godwin's Law might apply to OLO discussions about homosexuality. Something like "As an OLO discussion concerning homosexual rights grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nambla or paedophilia approaches 1".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

I'm not vain enough to call it Morgan's Law - which would sound too piratical anyway. Perhaps "Pericles' Law" would denote a suitable gravitas, appropriate to the extent to which comments involving ambla or paedophilia in such discussions should be taken seriously.

You are clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel, HermanYutic

>>There are likely at least as many Muslims in Australia as there are homosexuals. Shouldn't we then legalise polygamous marriage?<<

The logic behind this observation is impenetrable.

That is akin to saying that "there are far more vegetarians in Australia than Anglicans. Shouldn't we then outlaw eating meat?"

It is nonsensical on so many levels.

Almost as daft as this earlier offering:

>>You dismiss thousands of years of marriage between man and woman as not being validated<<

"Thousands of years", HermanYutic?

I strongly suggest that you treat yourself to some enlightenment on the topic. There are plenty of references, starting with good ol' Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

Take off those rose-tinted spectacles, for a start.

"For most of European history, marriage was more or less a business agreement between two families who arranged the marriages of their children. Romantic love, and even simple affection, were not considered essential"

Then think about this:

"The legal institution of marriage and its rules and ramifications have changed over time depending on the culture or demographic of the time"

The history of marriage has been far from static, as you try to suggest, and will continue to evolve as society evolves. The Romans, in fact, had a wide variety of marriages - confarreatio, coemptio, usus, and sine manu - each with its own set of rules

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/marriage/a/RomanMarriage.htm

This "different forms under one heading" approach could quite easily form a model for modern times.

The fact that your religion finds homosexuality distasteful is a concern in itself. Whom to hate really should be a matter for you to decide, rather than be thrust upon you.

But that's entirely your problem. Just don't think you can continue to impose your arcane vision of what marriage should or shouldn't be, on the rest of us.

Dear Herman,

I'll keep it simple.

You ask, "What's depriving people of educational
funding got to do with SSM?"
It all a question of size to you isn't it?
You brought up the question of size remember -
2%?

Australian Religious Right groups, and yourself
argue on the
grounds that a small minority is unworthy of
civil rights such as the right to marry, adopt
children and so on.

You brought up the argument
saying that homosexuals are only 2% of the
population and are therefore unworthy of consideration.

This argument makes no sense as you don't find these
same people (Religious Right and yourself) calling
for tiny Christian sects to be stripped of
government funding to run their own schools on the
basis of their size.

You then ask, "shouldn't we legalize polygamous
marriages?"

Perhaps one day we will - who knows?
But that's not the topic of this thread.

However, as someone stated on another website:
And I quote:

"The most plausible argument I have heard against
polygamy is that it would create an administrative
horror story for the government and other agencies.
...When you have(wedlocked) significant other, you
also have significant partner benefits and
entitlements. In relation to, for example, life
insurance, workers compensation, maintenance and
child support payments, recognizing more than one
partner could mean government agencies and the private
sector (insurance companies etc) are hit with more and
more claims if we are going to treat the first husband/wife
as being as worthy of child support payments as the
second, third, fourth ...

The arguments from here can go on and on...whether
society shrinks back from polygamy because of
administrative worries or if its more of a moral cringe
whether administrative/financial complexities are even
justifiable reasons for outlawing polygamy in the first
place, whether this is about religious views having
a stronger hold on our society ..."

These are all questions that need to be considered
possibly in a future debate. Let's for now stick to
the topic of same-sex marriage in this one.

CONT'D

Dear Herman,

I forgot to add in answer to your statement:

"There are at least as many Muslims as there are
homosexuals in Australia..."

Actually, at the 2006 Census there were 340,000
Muslims in Australia, of whom 128,904 were born
here. And since the 1970s Muslim communities
have developed many mosques and Islamic Schools
and have made vibrant contributions to the
multi-cultural fabric of Australian Society.

If you're seriously interested in raising the subject of
polygamy for further discussion
why don't you start your own thread?

C J Morgan

In your breathless haste to convince readers of your cleverness in thinking of it, you obviously did not read all of the Wikipedia article about Godwin's Law. Here is the telling bit that applies to you:

"However, Godwin's Law itself can be abused, as a distraction, diversion or even censorship, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate. A 2005 Reason magazine article argued that Godwin's Law is often misused to ridicule even valid comparisons"

Your last paragraph is classic C J Morgan - what a vain, pompous and pathetic little dog whistler you prove yourself to be. You have pirate fantasies too?

Almost as funny as your recent clanger where in your effort to appear superior to other voters who do not have your boasted knowledge of 'civics', you advocated an examination that would have disenfranchised many indigenous voters, whom you claim to support.

Cornflower, the point is that Nambla and paedophilia have about as much relevance to gay marriage as does Philo's obsession with anal sex, i.e. zilch.

Since you're here, why is it that you think that gay couples who wish to marry shouldn't be allowed to by the State?

C J Morgan

The point is that you are prone to vanity and boasting.

Your false dilemmas might work better at your local pub. Hire a mate and go for a drink.

Otherwise, go back and read the thread - that would be a first time for you.

Foxy,
You're trying to exclude polygamy from the argument by relegating discussion of it to another thread.
But it is very relevant to Australian marriage law and equality.
Australian law prohibits homosexual marriage.
Australian law prohibits polygamous marriage, whereas Islamic law sanctions it.
There are approximately the same number of Muslims as homosexuals in Australia.
If Australian law should be changed to include homosexual marriage,
why shouldn't it be changed to include polygamous marriage?
In fact, part of the pro-SSM argument is that homosexual marriage is already allowed in Sweden, Netherlands, etc.
On this basis, polygamous marriage has a greater claim to legalisation in Australia because
more countries sanction it and have done so for far longer than SSM has been around.
Your failure to address this issue shows the weakness of your argument.
I'm also personally disappointed at your summary dismissal of this problem which
appears to reflect a deep-seated Islamophobic attitude.
To change the marriage laws from a man and a woman to two consenting adults would
forever preclude Muslims from practising their sincerely held religious belief.
Shame on all SSM proponents who would allow homosexual marriage while
denying polygamous marriage (Islamic or otherwise).

Special pleading, HermanYutic.

>>To change the marriage laws from a man and a woman to two consenting adults would forever preclude Muslims from practising their sincerely held religious belief.<<

To illustrate how nonsensical this is, let us imagine for a moment that the law was indeed changed to allow homosexuals to marry.

This would by definition allow Muslims to do so.

And Christians too.

As well as non-Muslims and non-Christians

It is therefore an action that has absolutely nothing to do with "practising... sincerely held religious belief"

Which is entirely as it should be.

What your, or any other, faith allows or disallows is not at all relevant in this case.

If you Christians suddenly decided to go back to the good old days when you happily sacrificed goats and stuff, it would be frowned upon by a society that had, for want of a better phrase, moved on.

Marriage is above all a societal, not a religious issue. To decide unilaterally to claim it in the name of religion is a meaningless act, and is, quite appropriately, ignored by the rest of us.

Once again, I suggest that you do some research on the topic before making ridiculous assumptions.

>>Shame on all SSM proponents who would allow homosexual marriage while denying polygamous marriage (Islamic or otherwise).<<

It is, as I have pointed out, entirely irrelevant that someone's religion allows this, or disallows that. We exist in a society that long since decided that adherence to one particular religious code is a recipe for disharmony, and determined to make decisions in deliberate ignorance of the preferences of any individual sect.

Special pleading, Pericles.
You propose altering the marriage laws to include one particular aberrant sexual behaviour while excluding other aberrant sexual behaviours.
You claim a clear demarcation between the societal and religious sphere when it suits you.
However if a church refused to “marry” a homosexual couple you would be the first to scream discrimination.
What you would impose then, is the “right” for someone to marry based on their sexual behaviour but denying that “right” based on religious belief.
Given that a far greater percentage of the world’s population hold to religious beliefs than practise homosexuality, it could be argued that there is a stronger case for genetic/biological causation of religious predisposition than there is for homosexual behaviour.
There is abundant evidence that the vast majority of religious people can no more disavow their religiosity than can homosexuals abandon their sexual practices.
It would be interesting to compare the number of ex-Muslims as a percentage of the Muslim population to the number of ex-gays as a percentage of the homosexual population.
I wonder which heretic group is more persecuted by the remaining believers

The Federal Register is of Births, Marriages, and Deaths. WHY? It is to record family relationships of persons who are legal citizens so they receive citizens rights and priviledges. If children are born of that relationship they are recorded as having a mother and father, never two mothers, never two fathers. It is a physical imposibility! This is the uninteligent track that the proponents of the myth of same sex parents want us to take.

Next door to us lived a mother with three children to different fathers, no father living in the home. She moved out to live with her new boyfriend and sent the youngest child just six to live permantly with his father. The fifteen year old girl was sent to live with her father because she played truant and brought home girls and boys to indulge in all types of perverted sexual practises. The father allowed her to sleep in his home with any boy she fancied. This left the 17 year old son next door who invited his friends to move in. Every weekend was a drunken sexual orgy of between 15 - 17 teenagers. Fortunately we have managed to have them evicted after several police visits at 3am in the morning from the townhouse complex.

I have a former work colleague and close friend who also attends the same church as myself. He before he became a Christian was a practising homosexual, but on accepting Christ as Lord he knew he had to deny himself such perverted acts. He still enjoys the company of men but has no desire to have sex with them as his faith in the purity of Christianity gives him fulfilment in other ways. He is an exceptional musician and a talented craftsman.

He holds his former life was a perversion. he had one elder brother, no sisters but a dominating mother who wanted a daughter.

Still special pleading, HermanYutic.

I can drive a car on the roads, but not an armoured troop carrier. By your rationale, if we allow the one, we must allow the other as a matter of course. So why don't we?

Similar examples abound. Why can you buy paracetemol from a supermarket, but not methamphetamine?

Why can you legally participate in a boxing match, but not in a knife fight?

Society (i.e. us) is perfectly capable of judging different propositions on their own merit, which is why polygamy isn't relevant to this discussion. The "slippery slope" argument is stale and hollow.

And, of course, you've missed the richest irony: by your own reasoning, if we allow Christians to worship in accordance with their beliefs, we must therefore allow members of any existing cult or religion to behave as they see fit, no matter how brutal or antisocial.

Sancho
"And, of course, you've missed the richest irony:" when we legitimise homosexuality, they feel emboldened "to behave as they see fit, no matter how brutal or antisocial".
Witness the criminal retribution by homosexuals against those who voted for Proposition 8 in California.
Witness the masturbating from the balconies, the public oral and anal sex at places like the Folsom St Fair when homosexuals know that they are a protected species.
Witness the increasingly strident demands to allow anonymous sex in public places because it's part of the "homosexual culture".
I've got a great idea.
Let's teach the kiddies that all this is normal and desirable.

A mighty spray of hatred, but where was the response to what I said?

I ask you again, HermanYutic: why would legal gay marriage mean we must accept polygamy, when our laws routinely draw distinctions between similar types of proposal? And if your rationale is accurate, why can't Satanists legally kill unbaptised children, just as you can wear a cross in public?
Also, I have seen no evidence of the obscenities you describe. Can you back those claims up with a link to a valid source?

Sancho,

Links to the obscenities I described -

Criminal retribution by homosexuals against those who voted for Proposition 8 in California:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/upload/bg_2328-3.pdf

Masturbating from the balconies, public oral and anal sex at the appropriately named Up Your Alley Fair:
http://www.zombietime.com/up_your_alley_2008/part_1_full/

Public oral sex at the Folsom St Fair:
http://zombietime.com/folsom_sf_2007_part_1/

Demands to allow anonymous sex in public places because it's part of the "homosexual culture":
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-9326.html

How is commentary on observable behaviour “a mighty spray of hatred”?

Get help. Fast.

HermanYutic, I requested links to "valid" sources for a reason.

What you have provided instead are links to a far-Right propaganda site, a pro-Christian, pro-Republican image site, and, respectably, a link to a gay newspaper promoting a minority view. They are not valid.

I'm quite happy to discuss the ways you have been misled and hope to mislead others in this regard, but first I'd like you to address the questions you're conspicuously avoiding.

You have stated that if Australia legalises gay marriage, it must also legalise polygamy.

I have pointed out that we have many laws which permit socially accepted activities while restricting similar activities which are not considered acceptable.

For the third time, I ask you why marriage laws are an exception to this established norm. And, for the third time, I ask you to explain how your line of reasoning doesn't lead inevitably to the conclusion that any behaviour is acceptable if it has the permission of a religion or cult.

These aren't hard questions, and I'm basing them entirely on your own statements.

I believe, HermanYutic, that your argument is inconsistent, illogical, and based on prejudice rather than fact. I also believe that you realise it, which is why you refuse to answer my simple questions.

Prove me wrong by explaining your reasoning and I'll be happy to address the other issues you have raised.

From the first of Herman's links "Furthermore, although some same-sex marriageactivists have expressed disagreement with certain types of conduct described in this paper, few activists would disavow the ideology underlying much of the outrage surrounding Prop 8 and other efforts to defend marriage"

- lets put that into a different context and see how it looks "Furthermore, although some christain fundamentalists have expressed disagreement with certain types of conduct described in this paper, few fundamentalists would disavow the ideology underlying much of the outrage surrounding access to abortion and other efforts to defend womens control over their own bodies"

Link 2 a fetish fair (that link won't be appearing on my favourites list). Hetro marriages should be banned because of what happens at swingers parties, maybe not.

Link 3 - another fetish fair and again as relevant to the issue of gay marriage as extreme's of hetro behaviour.

Link 4 - "A small minority of gay men use parks or open spaces, known as cruising grounds, or public toilets, known as cottages, to look for sex." and "Some heterosexuals now ape that with dogging, a similar practice whereby single men and couples gather in a public place such as a car park either to watch or participate." Again I don't see the relevance to the issue of gay marriage.

R0bert

Stop inventing stuff, HermanYutic.

>>You propose altering the marriage laws to include one particular aberrant sexual behaviour while excluding other aberrant sexual behaviours.<<

I simply pointed out the introduction of children, animals and Austin Powerless' car into the discussion was entirely irrelevant to the issue of gay marriage.

You subscribe to the view that if society decides that homosexual couples should be allowed to marry, the same "right" should be applied to children , animals and Austin Powerless' car.

You provide no logical justification for this, which can only mean that you consider paedophilia, bestiality and sex between man and machine as having an equal status in the community.

It may have escaped your notice that society frowns on all three of these activities, to the point of making two of them illegal.

Sadly for Austin Powerless' car, it has to fend for itself.

You make the profoundly arrogant assumption, as Boaz/Polycarp did before you, that the performance of anything your religion disagrees indicates an absence - a vacuum, even - of moral consciousness. That leads, we are told, to a process of "making it up as you go".

This is the point at which you introduce all the examples possible of extreme aberrant behaviours, as "proof" that outside your right little, tight little group of moral holy rollers, the world is rife with sin.

So the world is divided for you neatly into people-like-you and people-not-like-you.

Fortunately it is not yet mandatory for us all to become people-like-you.

Sancho,
Homosexuality is not an established norm and never will be normal behaviour in any credible health report or biological way as you suppose.

About one third of the worlds population are Muslim and sanction polygamy as natural,(as it is). However it reduces the status of women to lesser than a man. But on the possibility of polygamy it is more likley to have a greater argument than the sexual pervision of homosexuality which in Islam is issued with the penalty of death.

Complete misunderstanding of the post, Philo.

My question is why legalising gay marriage must automatically lead to legalising polygamy when, in fact, we routinely make legal discriminations between superficially similar behaviours. That is the norm.

But since you mention it, how is homosexuality more aberrant than left-handedness? I'm particularly interested in your opinion, because at one point in time your religion viewed lefties as servants of the devil. Is that still your belief, or does that seem primitive and silly to you in 2009?

And please define for us what a "credible health report" is. I consider a report credible if it is clearly based on observable, testable evidence, with sufficient rigour to eliminate contradictory and confounding factors.

Am I correct in guessing that your definition of credibility is more along the lines of "anything that endorses a convoluted interpretation of a tribal Bronze Age document featuring the supernatural adventures of a divine Jewish zombie"?

There has not been any convincing argument so far as to why government should involve itself in personal relationships through enacting regulations and thereby enabling or restricting entitlements where it isn't essential to do so.

There are many voters who would think that government has already gone too far, presuming to judge where individuals are in de facto relationships when that was not their intent. Now 'de factos' don't even have to live together.

There always were heterosexual couples for whom their marriage had ended and they lived independent lives but, through economic necessity were forced to continue sharing the same housing. In these cases outlandish 'proofs' are required to demonstrate they are in fact separate - tests which most people who share accommodation and group houses would likely fail.

In short, the present family law would not seem to have the confidence or agreement of a very significant rump, if not most of the population.

Continuing large scale immigration, multiculturalism and ZPG of the previous mainly European population weigh the balance towards a full review, rather than piecemeal tinkering, of marriage if any change is proposed at all. All of the 'rights' or 'equality' arguments mounted for gay and lesbian marriage apply and possibly more so, to Muslim and other faith marriages. There is already pressure for recognition of Muslim marriage and divorce.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/until-two-legal-systems-do-us-part/2007/05/04/1177788404897.html

This returns the debate to RObert's reply, which was the first posted in response to Foxy. RObert raised issues which have never been effectively discussed or resolved and will continue to surface. If there is to be open debate, let it be a real open debate, not just the advocacy of a particular view.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3191&page=1

BTW, where do the Australian Greens stand on recognition of Muslim marriage, since what is being pushed here is the Greens policy and political tactics on gay and lesbian marriage?

Still trying to change the subject I see, Cornflower. As a reminder, it's "Isn't it time to allow gay marriage in Australia" - not de facto regulation, paedophilia, nor polygamy.

You ask about the Australian Greens' position on polygamy. Given that they have a Marriage Equality Amendment Bill currently before a Senate Inquiry, you can probably deduce their postion on polygamy yourself from the wording of the Bill:

<< 1 Subsection 5(1) (definition of marriage)
4 Repeal the definition, substitute:
5 marriage means the union of two people, regardless of their sex,
6 sexuality or gender identity, voluntarily entered into for life.

[...]

3 Subsection 46(1)
16 Omit “a man and a woman”, substitute “two people”.

[...]

6 Part III of the Schedule (table item 1)
28 Omit “a husband and wife”, substitute “two people”. >>

http://tiny.cc/TFrL7

It seems pretty clear to me that "two people" is incompatible with polygamy.

Now that I've done you the courtesy of answering your question, perhaps you could belatedly do the honest and polite thing and answer mine, i.e.

Why shouldn't gay couples who wish to marry be allowed to do so by the State?

CJM

So as per usual the Greens social policies are piecemeal and are being made up on the run?

Then in your final sentence you add your usual dumb-ass false dilemma that everyone is awake to. Those superficial black or white arguments might appeal at your pub when everyone is drunk and you are welcome to them.

How do you reconcile your and the Greens' belief that the right of Muslims (or other religions) to having their form of marriage and marriage law accepted is a lesser right than that of gays and lesbians? What about the Greens' multicultural policy or is that just empty promises?

Greens - Multiculturalism 'policy'
Policy D15
Principles
The Australian Greens believe that:

1. the diversity of Australians’ cultural backgrounds greatly enriches our society and is to be celebrated.

2. people have the right to celebrate and express their cultural heritage within universally accepted human rights.

3. all people, regardless of ethnicity, culture, religion, language or place of birth, have equal rights economically, socially and culturally.

Fact is, it is nowhere near as simple as just allowing the few (the number changes according to the needs of the rhetoric) gay and lesbians to marry and you know it.

The Greens' policy is full of apparent inconsistencies and this is because very few of the so-called 'policies' exist other than by title. Obviously it is quite OK to cherry pick who has rights and who doesn't so the same sex marriage gets to be fleshed out if nothing else. That is despite the added, unnecessary complexity that will regulate the private lives of homosexuals and the probable losses for many, if not most gays and lesbians who do not intend their relationships to be decided by public servants.

This returns the debate to RObert's reply, which was the first posted in response to Foxy. RObert raised issues which have never been effectively discussed or resolved and will continue to surface. If there is to be open debate, let it be a real open debate, not just the advocacy of a particular view.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3191&page=1

Dear oh dear Cornflower - you're not very honest, are you?

Why is my question a "dumb-ass false dilemma"? It seems pretty straightforward to me, as it does to others in this discussion who've requested that you answer it. Instead, you invariably wriggle and squirm and try to change the subject.

It's because you can't answer it honestly without invoking the same kinds of "dumb-ass" blatant homophobia that your less mendacious, but equally hateful, cohorts advocate, isn't it?

While I'm not going to play your topic-switching game, I will note that you've engaged in a little "cherry picking" yourself in your last, typically convoluted post. The Greens' full policy on Multiculturalism is available at the link below, and is somewhat more elaborated than you falsely imply.

http://greens.org.au/node/785

Given your repeated dishonesty and your refusal to answer a direct question that pertains directly to the thread topic, I don't think I'll respond to you again until you do so. Once again:

Why shouldn't gay couples who wish to marry be permitted to do so by the State?

The first couple of times, I just assumed that Cornflower was trying to extricate herself from an embarrassing and untenable rhetorical position. It seems, though, that this is how she thinks debates are won.

I suggest we dub this strategy the Cornflower Caper.

Anyone can do it. Just post a series of non-sequiturs completely unrelated to the topic or question, viciously attack anyone who points out the silliness of it, and claim victory.

Example:

Thread topic: GRASS IS GREEN

OP: In my experience, grass is usually green.

Cornflower: Trees are green which is why hippy Leftists use forests to make Australia Muslim and introduce an ETS so we'll be communist like Andrew Bartlett and have compulsory gay marriage. Therefore grass is not green.

OP: that's insane.

Cornflower: stupid dumb-ass.

CJM

You are back to name calling, but maybe you never stopped. Your back is to the ropes, huh?

What utter BS you write, I quoted direct from the Greens' site as well you know. You can quote more if you like but the hypocrisy is still there for all to see - what is sauce for the goose is definitely not sauce for the gander. As I said, (but of course you refuse to answer):

"How do you reconcile your and the Greens' belief that the right of Muslims (or other religions) to having their form of marriage and marriage law accepted is a lesser right than that of gays and lesbians? What about the Greens' multicultural policy or is that just empty promises?

Greens - Multiculturalism 'policy'
Policy D15
Principles
The Australian Greens believe that:

1. the diversity of Australians’ cultural backgrounds greatly enriches our society and is to be celebrated.

2. people have the right to celebrate and express their cultural heritage within universally accepted human rights.

3. all people, regardless of ethnicity, culture, religion, language or place of birth, have equal rights economically, socially and culturally.

Fact is, it is nowhere near as simple as just allowing the few (the number changes according to the needs of the rhetoric) gay and lesbians to marry and you know it."

The Greens' policy is uni-dimensional, benefiting the few gays and lesbians who are obviously well-connected, very vocal and stand to gain, while the remainder who want no change and do not want public servants probing their domestic arrangements and personal lives are collateral damage.

As for other ethnic groups, cultures and religions, well despite all of that wordage about having equal rights, 'never you mind' is about it for them.

Now if you want to use your dumb-ass false dilemma as an excuse to duck off then so be it, that would be par for the course for you, operating as you do on a superficial level and refusing to discuss the complexity or ramifications of what you espouse.

Sancho

What solutions do you have?

Solutions to what? The legislated second-class citizenship of homosexuals?

We can solve that by making all unions legally equal, as suggested in the OP.

Despite the insults, false equivalencies and unfounded moral outrage, there's nothing else described in this thread that qualifies as a problem.

Dear Sancho,

The release of a Galaxy poll found that 60%
of Australians supported equal same-sex marriage
rights and the introduction of the gender neutral bill.
Equal marriage rights are becoming a significant and
central human rights issue.

National campaigns calling for same-sex marriage
have been running for five years and have attracted
growing support. These campaigns involve education
and direct action protests - their key demand is
for the Australian government to legislate equal
marriage rights for all - regardless of sex, sexual
orientation or gender.

The arguments against same-sex marriage can be broken
down into two types. The first is rooted in homophobia
and bigotry. Ultra-conservatives and the religious
right claim marriage is a 'sacred institution.'
That it is exclusively between a man and a woman.

This kind of outright expression of homophobic prejudice
has more to do with keeping in place a family structure
reinforcing traditional roles than it is about protecting
"sacred love."

Whereas part of the "moral" argument against same-sex marriage
is that marriage has always been between men and women.
This historical argument implies that history somehow
provides a moral high ground. As other posters have
pointed out with facts - this argument doesn't wash.

However, as you can see - its all getting rather tedious,
and repetitive. And, as CJ pointed out - no further point
in continuing.

Foxy

Your opening post invited opinion. If you did it solely to advocate a position and only wanted to hear from those of a similar bent to you by all means say so next time (there will be a next time, right?) and most respondents will not bother to post.

Frankly it is a bit tedious responding to an invitation for an open discussion only to find that anyone who has the heart and goodwill to try to explain why contrary views are held is ignored, rejected and abused.

Splitting people into those who are for or against you, good and evil, is immature and manipulative, only serving to prove that you believe that the end justifies the means and are uninterested in the opinions and needs of the remainder of the population.

Further, you quote sources such as the Galaxy poll, drawing from it what is convenient to your case and being careful not to say anything about the design of the survey and its known design flaws.

Similarly you don't mention the notorious unreliability of such surveys. Amazing how the formal polls by the Australian Electoral Office consistently deliver markedly different results to the surveys by Galaxy and others beforehand of voter intentions. Does that mean that the Electoral Office is biased? Hardly!

If your aim is advocacy of the Greens' policy, so be it but again, why not declare that from the outset? For comparison, the mainstream parties must try to consider all of the facts, represent all of the electorate and consider the overall impact of policies, both now and in the future. Still, you and the Greens know best so there is no chance of any of that happening, right?

Sancho, "nothing else described in this thread that qualifies as a problem."

That may be your instinctive response, filtering out any comment that runs counter to your opinion. However, if you draw back a little you might agree that some raise matters they genuinely believe ought to be considered. For example, I abhor the continued interference of government in the private affairs of citizens.

Indeed, Foxy. Once again, the polls remind us that the self-styled "silent majority" is actually the noisiest minority.

For me, the irony is that I detest the exhibitionist aspect of gay culture and can't stand obnoxious, self-righteous gays who expect their repulsive personal behaviour to be regarded as a virtue simply because of their sexuality. But as a community-minded egalitarian I cannot tolerate the bullying and oppression of ANY minority group.

It's rather tragic that religious conservatives spend so much energy railing against the high profile of gay issues, when they could bury the whole business overnight by just minding their own business and not trying to police other peoples' private lives.

Tedious and repetitive? Yes, but it never hurts to make absolutely clear how hollow and unfounded are the arguments against gay equality.

I doubt we'll see HermanYutic back in the thread after his complete failure to back his argument up, and Cornflower's contribution begins and ends with tangential, unconnected statements which demonstrate nothing but desperation.

I'm confident that any fair-minded reader of this thread would give no credit to the gay-hate arguments. That's why the repetition is dull but important.

Dear Cornflower,

I do not have any hidden agenda, therefore
your assumptions about me are not accurate.

I merely quoted from the Greens website
in response to your question about Centrelink
and Gays. I thought the website answered your
question rather well.
You criticized me for chosing that particular website.
However, you failed to mentioned the fact
that what they said was actually correct.
And you accuse me of being bias?

I'm not deliberately trying to be divisive.
I said that I don't care to continue this discussion
any further simply because I don't see
us achieving anything constructive.

You're entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine.
Including the very poor one you obviously have of me.

However, I do have a question for you...
You say that you're concerned about the government's
interference in people's private lives.

Well, I'm sure that you'll agree that a decision
to marry is a deeply personal choice. And, the Australian
government prevents gay couples from making that choice
for themselves - simply because they are gay. Isn't
that interfering in people's private lives - and
shoudln't you be concerned about it, as you claim you
are? Or do you mean that you're only concerned about
government interference in certain people's private
lives - not giving a damn about the others?

Also could you answer CJ's question. He's been asking
you to do so for this entire thread. You can't accuse
people of being 'selective'
when you are guilty of doing just that.

Dear Sancho,

Thank you for your well reasoned inputs.

Dear Foxy, I fear you are flogging a dead horse here! I have worked out that we will never change the minds of some contributers to these pages, although, like you, I sometimes feel strangely driven to argue with them!

Cornflower, if we ask for some opinions on a subject, it doesn't mean we never want to hear any opposing opinions to our own. If that were the case there would be no need for online opinion.

Most people don't care whether gays get married or not, because it doesn't really affect them. If you are opposed to gay marriage, that is fine, you will never be forced to marry a gay person!

Foxy,

So the gist of what you are saying is that you are upset and it is my fault. But you can still see well enough through the veil of hurt feelings to bowl up that tired old chestnut from Morgie again. What a joke and give me a break!

However much I might value your opinions on other threads I have reasons for disagreeing with your stance on this issue. As you know I am firmly opposed to the tricking-up of any legislation that causes it to serve purposes that are at odds with the original intent of the legislation. Such back door modding of the Marriage Act as proposed by the Greens is unprincipled, unethical, entirely unnecessary and sets a most regrettable precedent. The end does not justify the means by any stretch of the imagination.

The reasonable and as it so happens the democratic way of doing things would be to either to withdraw the Marriage Act and start again or (better) draft a Bill for the purposes you have in mind. Either way there must be full and direct consultation with the electorate especially because it is glaringly apparent that there is no community consensus with recent changes to family law.

The government does not have a mandate to change the Marriage Act and that has been confirmed by the opposition and by the government.

What is wrong with asking for full and direct consultation with the electorate on significant social legislation, especially where there is no mandate for change?

suzeonline,

With respect, have you read my posts or just the posts that That misrepresents where I am coming from.

Cornflower <'With respect, have you read my posts or just the posts that That misrepresents where I am coming from.'

On the contrary Cornflower, I do perfectly understand where you are coming from. It is just that I don't agree with you. Sorry.

This thread is about gay marriage- not Muslim marriages, not polygamy, and if you '..abhor the continued interference of government in the private affairs of citizens.', then why on earth are you upset about allowing gay people to legally marry?

Dear Cornflower,

I'm not upset, and I certainly understand
where you're coming from. As I've consistently
said - you're entitled to your opinion, I
just don't happen to agree with it and I can't
understand if you're so concerned about
government interference in people's private affairs -
why you can't see that by not allowing same-sex
marriages the government is interfering in
people's private affairs.

I've also stated quite clearly - that it will
be up to Australia to decide what sort of
legislation it wants passed. At no time did
I suggest that this should be done without community
consultation.

You seem to think that this is somehow an attack
on you personally.

It's not.

A healthy vital society is not one in which we all
agree. It is one in which those who disagree
can do so with respect for other people's opinions
and an appreciation of our shared humanity.
Without personal commitment to the attributes of
fair play and integrity, our community is in grave
danger. Malice and intolerance stalk our society.
Where people are not free to disagree, democracy
ceases to exist.

Many of the things that most of us were brought
up to think "could never happen here," have already
begun to happen. Dangerous scapegoating, violent
hate crimes, small-minded intolerance for the views
of others.

It is more important that we renew dignified and
respectful dialogue with those who don't agree
with us than that we keep congratulating those
who have the wisdom to see thing our way.

Foxy

Thank you for the reply.

It is important that people engage with one another on subjects like this rather than regurgitate the spin of the propagandists from either side.

suzeonline,

No, you have made 'rights' and 'equality' your goal, so how can you deny the same rights and equality to others?

You are saying that it is the first one to the picket fence that counts and they can stand in line.

Dear Col,

Not only are you straight
but you're also narrow!

Cornflower: << It is important that people engage with one another on subjects like this >>

Indeed - and a good start would be for some to respond honestly to simple, reasonable questions that relate directly to the topic under debate, rather than trying to change the subject, obfuscating and attacking those with whom they disagree, or simply dislike.

Since I'm here,

Why shouldn't those gay couples who wish to marry be allowed to by the State?

Cornflower (sigh), no you don't see my point at all.

The subject is whether or not Australia should allow Gay marriage.
I say they should allow it, because marriage between two gay persons will hopefully bring great joy to two people in love.
It is already sanctioned as a defacto relationship, and that has not caused the sky to fall in, so why not that one step further?

If we feel like a debate on the pros and cons of allowing other sorts of marriage in Australia- such as polygamy- then we could start another thread.

Like CJ, I wonder why don't you just answer that simple question too Cornflower?
Or do you have a hidden agenda (religious?) as to why you are not prepared to give a straight (pardon the pun!) answer?

“It has been a few days since I visited this particular pursuit of the irrelevant and I see a few have made comment to my previous post

Houlle “how did the wedding go”…

Perfectly thanks H.. I will send you a pic through the usual channels .. not sure what we used for the toast, I just paid the tab but whatever it was it suited my palette and the new Mrs took 3 days to come back to earth…. I might modestly add, as a function of the wedding… not the honeymoon :- )

I get your point about standards. Some things are best reviewed and if no good reason is found to change them, be left as they were. Marriage is like that and the “Gay Union” agenda is not a valid reason to let every deviant and twisted mind front up for a marriage union.

Pontificator “See you have told us something about you, you're a homophobe. Who would have guessed!”

Call me what you want, your view and name calling is stupid anyway.

Homosexuality is “abnormal” and I do tolerate the “abnormal”.

However, that does not entitle the “abnormal” to be given the exact same treatment as if they were “normal”

any more than those abnormal folk who seek wedded bliss with animals (or their cars) or NAMBLA, deserve to be awarded “equal opportunity to marry”, the same as “normal" heterosexuals.

This was a bumper sticker seen on
a car in Los Angeles:

"All bigots will be re-incarnated
as gay, homeless, people of colour!"

Bumper sticker on a car in Australia:

Save the Marriage Act:
If It Isn't Broken, Don't Fix It!

A few more to add to the collection:-

1) "Gay marriage doesn't scare me
Hate crimes do."

2) "Better a gay marriage
than a sad marriage."

3) "I may be straight
but I'm not narrow."

4) "Keep your religion out of my bedroom."

5) "Love is like a Rubix Cube
there are countless numbers of wrong twists
and turns, but when you get it right,
it looks perfect no matter what way you
look at it."

6) "Gay or straight
Black or white
Marriage is a civil right."

7) "Ban gay bashing
Not gay marriage."

8) "Stop gay marriage
Because there's nothing
God hates more than
people who love each other."

9) "Can I vote on YOUR marriage?"

CONT'D...

Just a few words before I go for the
evening...

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Is like saying - if you don't love -
shove it. Colin Powell described that as"
"... the slogan of the complacent,
the arrogant or the scared. It's simply
an excuse for inaction."

And if it isn't helping, it's most
likely hurting.

Cornflower: << Save the Marriage Act:
If It Isn't Broken, Don't Fix It! >>

If one is a gay person who wants to marry their lover and partner, I have no doubt that the Marriage Act, if not broken, needs amendment.

From today's Crikey:

<< Federal Labor has run out of excuses. Since 2004, it has trotted out a series of arguments to oppose same-s-x marriage, and each one of them has subsequently tumbled away to reveal naked prejudice. Rudd has been mugged by reality, and the showdown will be this Saturday.
The Religious Right are gathering in Canberra this weekend and Rudd is the guest speaker. There is only one thing this audience want to hear from him. One thing only. They want him to announce that he will strike down the ACT’s recently amended Civil Partnerships Act.

The current Act offends the Old Testament Taliban because it "mimics marriage", in that it provides for a state-sanctioned ceremony as part of the registration process. That’s right, the pressing concern at this week’s gathering of reactionary Catholics, Fundamentalists and Pentecostal Christians isn’t world poverty, terrorism, global warming, social housing or alcohol abuse among teens, it’s the fact that two people in love want to make a shared commitment to one another in front of friends and family.

Sadly, Rudd will pander directly to this prejudice and use the conference to announce that, yes, he will quash this legislation in the ACT for the third time. Thunderous applause from the room will follow and then everyone can have a cup of tea and a Milk Arrowroot. Moral decline averted.

But there won’t be any applause from the majority of Australians who not only support civil unions, but gay marriage itself. If the most recent Galaxy poll on this topic is to be believed, up to 60% of voters support full marriage rights for same-s-x couples, let alone the "marriage lite" option of partnership registration. >>

The rest of the article is to be found here: http://tiny.cc/tfNdO .

[cont]

[cont]

It's very pertinent to this discussion, but I doubt that our resident homophobes will bother to read it.

Speaking of whom, you made that "bumper sticker" up, didn't you Cornflower?

While I'm here, why shouldn't gay couples who wish to marry be allowed to by the State?

Who believes bumper stickers any way as credible edicts - they are opinion couched in emotive words.

Laws of a democratic nation do not serve exclusive groups within a community. Once a precedent is set in law all can appeal to that law for equal recinition. That includes multiple relationships, including the guy with 23 live in sex partners and 46 children all dependent on State welfare.

On health: What section of our community has the highest incidence of deaths caused by AIDS?

Cornflour I have to congratulate you for your clear thinking and valid arguments against the sectional intrests of a few. A good law has a universal philosophy behind it rather than a section advantage for a few. The advocates for same sex intercourse argue there are no creational principals in sexuality and anything is OK if we OK it by law.

The Marriage Act was broken in August 2004, when the then government changed it from a non-discriminatory to a discriminatory piece of legislation, and denied a right to a portion of the Australian population. I have no doubt that getting it unbroken is simply a matter of time.

Brian Greig’s Crikey article could be a tad alarmist. I’m certain that Rudd is aware that same-sex relationship recognition is becoming more and more acceptable to Australians. He knows better than all of us that successful politicians move with the political wind, not against it. If he’s to stay in character, then at today’s ACL conference he will find a way of sidestepping the issue. In fact I’m hoping his speech contains some Bonhoeffer-esque advice for christians to concentrate more on helping the needy, and less on the divisive social issues they have been using to define themselves.

In any event, the cause of same-sex relationship recognition will benefit from today's events, no matter which way they go. If Rudd does announce that he is overriding the ACT's civil partnerships arrangements, then we will be rid of a discriminatory piece of legislation that could be used as a precedent elsewhere (the ceremonies in the legislation are only for same-sex couples, not for all couples). If he doesn't override it, then the principle that same-sex couples are entitled to celebrate their relationships with officially sanctioned ceremonies will be established.

A few hours from now we’ll know.

Cornflower leaving aside the issue of gay marriage I think that there are plenty of indicators that the marriage act is broken. Divorce rates are too high to give any credence to the idea that marriage as it is works well and the harm done to so many in the washup add's to that.

I still think that the issue needs a broader discussion about how much state inteferance we want in consentual adult choices rather than the push for minor ammendments. I think that one of Foxy's quotes should go a lot further 4) "Keep your religion out of my bedroom." can and should be extended to sources of prejudice other than religion.

My preference for a broader discussion is not opposition to allowing gay couples to have the same legal rights and protections (as well as risks) that straight couples have. Some of that's already been done by the sneaky changes to laws around defacto relationships but I have a fundamental objection to the idea that there is no point where those impacted make a choice to change the status of the relationship and take on the rights and risks of a legal relationship.

R0bert

The advocates of same sex marriage do obviously recognise different gender but not its genetic and social roles as distinctly evolved persons as they they talk about same sex intercourse as though it is fulfilling some evolved genetic purpose. Obviously it is a degenerate mutation from normal that needs eradication from the gene pool. In fact it by its character is self destructive.

All

Pilo's last summation is typical of the prejudiced in that it is as inaccurate as it is scientifically hokum based on (prejudicial) assumptions.

The same spurious rationale has been used to justify every prejudice from disability , race even eugenics.

To use terms Like 'degeneration' in the context of homosexuality must be based on the 'belief' that genetics, nature, evolution superiority. In turn this needs the assumption that GNE have a defined hierarchy i.e. end goal.

Might I point out this is merely religious influenced anthropomorphic 'heterosexual' superiority (arrogance)not science. Nature/Evolution are both processes not end goals. Likewise Genetics is an explanation of the observable not a qualitative/moral judgement.

Change our environment and humans may re-evolve into dual sexuality like some fish? Which BTW is in all our genes.

One say that all humans have the genetics for 'homosexuality. And their expression varies from person to person and subject to a myraird of factors.

All our genetics would have 'inaccuracies', 'throwbacks', manifestations of passive/dominant genes and from that perspective we then are all degenerate.

In essence the expressed view reflects the authors religious influenced 'beliefs' not science or objectivity.

My point, as always, is that there is no such thing as absolutes just temporally contextual opinions. Mores are human creations and therefore circumstantial not absolute.

Finally I would propose that it is this propensity to (inaccurately) view ourselves as the standard that allows some of us to indulge in all forms of prejudice. We simply fear that which is different.

NB Unless homosexual marriages become mandatory for all(including heterosexual) I fail to objectively its legalization is anything more that the concern of those whose personal human rights are being acknowledged.
Anything less that that is illogical and plain fear based prejudice.

The Marriage Act continues to reflect the values and priorities of Australians otherwise the major parties would act. Not to do so would spell electoral defeat.

However there is no such pressure and there remains no mandate for change.

The incidence of divorce is a different issue entirely and has as much to do with financial pressures and uncertain social and economic environments as anything else. For example, government reports show conclusively that couples are delaying their fertility and not having the children they would like because they cannot afford housing and their continuing employment is up in the air.

It is in the area of family law where change has been continual and covert that public confidence in the law has been lost. However that is only to be expected where the values of the overwhelming majority of the electorate have been disregarded and a result is legalised bigamy.

Is family law broken? Undoubtedly it is and there is a hardening of attitude in the electorate against the sneaky tweaks of law by the arrogant elites who presume to know what is best for everyone.

Presently, a minor party that only has a toe-hold in that 'unrepresentative swill of a senate' but is certain it knows best, is proposing to fiddle the Marriage Act to entirely change its meaning and the values it represents. Although claiming to value 'equality' and 'rights' that same party has set out to dismiss the rights and equality of any individual or group outside of the small sectional interest it is representing. It is hypocrisy of the Greens to disregard its own multicultural policy (as quoted earlier).

There is growing concern in the electorate about the assault on the Marriage Act. Combined with the loss of public confidence in family law that should make for a most interesting run up to the next election.

In one of the many websites that I've
used in this discussion perhaps this
sums it up best:

"The number one reason heterosexuals marry
is not to establish legal status, allow
joint filling of taxes, or protect each
other in medical decision-making. They marry
because it is the ultimate expression of a
person's love for another. Marriage is a
commitment that says, "I love you so much
that I want to live the rest of my life with
you. I want to share the ups and downs, forsake
all others, and be together until death do us
part." Should it matter that the couple
doesn't fit into what society is used to. Some
people talk about living wills and other legal
contracts. If that is the case, why don't all
heterosexual couples use these legal maneuvers
instead of marriage? Just maybe there's
something more to it."

Examinator, in his recent post on this thread
has summed up the situation rather well.
One of the websites that I've cited in the past
fully confirms his theories, and I quote:

"The 'should-they or shouldn't-they' argument over
same-sex marriage rages on, for the most part,
overlooking a crucial point: there is no
argument. To term opposition to same-sex marriage
as having an argument is to flatter their
conservative ideals unnecessarily, for there is
nothing to validate this explicit discrimination
which outlaws same-sex marriage that can be
substantiated in a secular democracy."

Foxy, "The number one reason heterosexuals marry is not to establish legal status, allow joint filling of taxes, or protect each other in medical decision-making. They marry because it is the ultimate expression of a person's love for another."

That is the stuff of womens' magazines - 'the one', romantic love and all of that rose tinted glasses stuff. Where is the evidence to back it up?

Most couples I know say that it was because they were planning to have children that they married, otherwise living together would have been fine.

A high percentage of couples who have lived together for a long time before marriage. They don't need a paper to tell them how they feel and marriage was about formalising arrangements for children and for pesky officialdom.

I am certain that where child dependants are not involved the greatest majority of people, heterosexual or homosexual, would prefer to have government entirely out of their lives and relationships.

For centuries adults were free and able to run their own relationships and domestic affairs without the intrusion of the Nanny State's courts and public servants. Get rid of the Nanny State and have simply worded agreements if deemed necessary, but the involved parties can decide all of that. As it is now, many are inadvertently snared into complex mine field that is family law and lawyers get to feather their nests.

Using the tools and tricks of propaganda to label and stereotype those who have genuine objections to overturning the Marriage Act will rebound on activists.

Dear Cornflower,

Where is YOUR evidence to back up anything
that you've posted here?

Your say so? The fact that YOUR friends tell
you something makes it authoritative - whereas
what I say is questionable?

The websites that I quote from are in your
opinion - simply rants from "minority parties."
The fact that Galaxy polls show that over 60%
of Australians support same-sex marriage -
is brushed aside by you again as "propaganda."
No chance of them being accurate in your eyes,
is there?

You expect from others certain courtesies that
you're not prepared to give.

You seem to be so convinced of your omniscience
that you're not prepared to listen to any one
else. All you seem capable of doing is bleating
about the actions of others without looking
at how you're behaving.

Give you a break? How about your returning
the favour?

It's other people who, "use tools and tricks of
propaganda to label and stereotype ..." not you.
And you say that these actions will rebound...
Damn straight! (pardon the pun).
So stop doing it - otherwise you'll have no credibility
left whatsoever!

For your information, "The Senate Legal and Constitutional
Affairs Committee is due to release its report into
marriage equality. It's impossible to know what the
outcome will be, except to say it will again raise the
issue's profile. Then on Saturday, there will be another
National Day of Action on Marriage Equality with rallies
in most major centres."

As we all know, and as history has shown - "minorities"
are no small achievers. You only have to study the
history of the Jews, as one example.

But hey, you go right on doing what you're doing.
Stick with, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Change will come whether you like it or not.
60% of the population approving something is sure
to attract the attention of the politicians.

Cornflower,

I think you need to sit down and think about what you're arguing.
'Nanny state'? A term I reject having the same intellectual justification as a declaration that the world is flat. (It is a 'backs to the wall' desperation pejorative term called on by 'conservatives' who are bereft of either an argument or logic)
The intention is to indicate an overly protectionist position of government legislation.

Your application of this term leaves one wondering 'what is being protected?' in this instance,'the marriage act' in its current form.
Those like Foxy and myself that aren't opposed to Homosexual marriage or the Homosexuals themselves AREN'T being protected by the Nanny State. Rather it's the Naysayers who are defending (needing the Nanny state protection for the Status Quo.)

Also, self referential and anecdotal justification has no more validity in logic/law/reason that claiming that one slept with ET.
*IT ISN'T EVIDENCE*

I would argue that the more extreme (fixed reflective of dogma) a view is, the higher the likelihood that the holder's friends are likewise afflicted. (e22)
"birds of a feather etc".

>"for centuries....."< when was this? Even the Druids had an equivalent of a codified marriage as did the 'stone-age natives of PNG.

>"Genuine Concerns....."< What you mean, is emotional concerns, which are only valid to that individual.
As demonstrated Your response >"is full of tricks and techniques"< and poor logic, unprovable assertions and light on provable facts.

BTW this in no way implies you are not entitled to your 'personal' views. What explicitly mean is that if you express those views which impose restrictions on other's 'rights', you must accept, you will be challenged.

examinator,
What a lot of meaningless waffle!

The operative word in; "Isn't it time to allow gay marriage in Australia?" Is the word "allow", our society currently allows gays to sexuall cohabit. What do they want at law, certainly not social recognition of they being a couple; Because they have that already.

However the term marriage with regard to gender can only be defined as "between a person of male gender and a person of female gender" no exceptions. It is a union of different genders. Marriage means a bonding together of two things of difference. Combining more of the same into one union is not marriage

I share the frustrations with Cornflower’s posts. It’s worth pointing out, though, that they contain many of the features of the anti-equality brigade, and they show why it’s a difficult issue for governments.

First, the enemies of equality are happy to cloud the debate with spurious unrelated issues. Cornflower is entitled to her/his view that government intervention into non-marital relationships goes too far. But this has nothing to do with equality for same-sex couples, and his claims that it does is completely irrelevant. Cornflower’s claims are far from the worst irrelevancies we’ve read here, but the tactic of attempting to derail the debate with straw issues is one s/he shares with the most repugnant participants in this discussion.

Second, the opposition to marriage equality is littered with absurd and untested assertions:
- “'rights' cannot be given without taking away the rights of others” http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3191#75836
- “homosexual pairings are not covered by the Marriage Act is simply because the State chose to regulate, support and exploit the common natural couplings that work to the advantage of the community” http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3191#75639
- “There is growing concern in the electorate about the assault on the Marriage Act.” http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3191#76756

Third, the enemies of equality are immune to reason. You can make a case from first principles, and argue it until you’re blue in the face: they simply will not budge, and they will steadfastly refuse to address core questions, like the one CJ has been pressing. Logic plays no part in their views.

Fourth, they don’t shrink from making dark threats: “Using the tools and tricks of propaganda to label and stereotype those who have genuine objections to overturning the Marriage Act will rebound on activists.” http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3191#76760

[continued

[from previous]

This is the crux of equal-rights politics. Governments need to find the courage to override the objections of the zealots, or a way of accommodating their views that doesn’t introduce more inequality (like civil partnerships).

Unfortunately, the zealots don’t just lie down quietly when governments come to a decision, as we’ve seen in the US. More than forty years after racial equality was legislated there, race politics is still a huge factor in US public affairs. Equality for same-sex-attracted people in the US is being achieved in tiny increments, and every step is bitterly fought by the zealots. Here, they also attempt to throw their weight around, but governments are becoming a little better at recognising the cost of yielding to them: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/christian-lobby-warns-rudd-over-civil-unions/1683930.aspx

The enemies of equality are irrational, unconcerned by values of truth and fairness, willing to introduce any unrelated issue to derail the debate, and prepared to bully and threaten governments to get their way. Cornflower is a relatively mild case, but still displays all the symptoms.

Some very good posts lately in this discussion - and I think that woulfe encapsulates the core issues of the debate very succinctly.

I don't think that I can add much more, except to ask the closet homophobes once again...

Why shouldn't gay couples who wish to marry be allowed to by the State?

The claim that homosexual marriage is an equal rights issue is spurious. As marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. And in that contract it identifies difference of gender not equality of gender. Because one could be abused or abandoned or immoral. Though both are equal before the law, it does not mean both are equal persons.

The marriage contract protects the dignity and interests of both partners within a contractual situation. That does not deny personal committments between two people. That allows two people to agree outside the State Marriage Act to uphold the same dignity and shared interests. The reason marriage is a legal contracted is because it involves responsibility to family, where one is a nurturer and the other a provider and protector of the family.

Two men sharing the same bed and both going off to work each day do not need a contract to gender roles and differences.

Philo isn't one of the closet homophobes I was talking about.

No way he's in the closet - he's out and proud!

Philo - we know that the Marriage Act currently specifies "man" and "woman". Our argument is that this should be changed to "two people" because the current wording discriminates against homosexual couples who want to marry.

Just to make it clear for you.

Now, why shouldn't the wording be changed so that the State allows them to marry?

Philo <"The reason marriage is a legal contracted is because it involves responsibility to family, where one is a nurturer and the other a provider and protector of the family."

Gee Philo what century are you quoting from? These days men and women often undertake both these roles in a modern marriage or partnership.
There is no reason why gay couples can't do this also.

I agree with CJM and Woulfe, however I don't believe we can ever change the minds of the likes of Philo and Cornflower.

I am out of here!

suzieonline

It is not my mind you have to change, try electorate instead and add votes. Because it is not about frivolous opinion polls commissioned by activists, it is about votes in an election supervised by the Australian Electoral Commission. As stated numerous times, the Greens do not have a mandate to interfere with the Marriage Act.

Moreover, the Greens are like bulls in a china shop, they really haven't thought through what they are doing. By way of example, if the Greens really believed their own 'rights' and 'equality' spin they would live up to the promises of their multicultural policy. To quote again what I have said before:

"How do you reconcile your and the Greens' belief that the right of Muslims (or other religions) to having their form of marriage and marriage law accepted is a lesser right than that of gays and lesbians? What about the Greens' multicultural policy or is that just empty promises?
.....
The Greens' policy is uni-dimensional, benefiting the few gays and lesbians who are obviously well-connected, very vocal and stand to gain, while the remainder who want no change and do not want public servants probing their domestic arrangements and personal lives are collateral damage.

As for other ethnic groups, cultures and religions, well despite all of that (Greens) wordage about having equal rights, 'never you mind' is about it for them."

Come on Greens, if it is all down to 'rights' and 'equality', just what have you got against Muslims, for instance?

Not only don't the Greens have a mandate to fiddle with the Marriage Act but the major parties agree that the existing and prevailing mandate is to maintain the Marriage Act as it is.

The fact is that biologically persons of the same gender cannot marry, it is biologically impossibility. The purpose of sperm it to fertilize and fuse with an ovum to form a new person. If homosexual males copulate fertile sperm vaginally with a female are they biologically married, and fulfil the biological term marriage.

Philo, marriage is a social construct, not a "biological term".

Cornflower, who do you hate more - gays or Greens?

Why shouldn't gay couples who wish to marry be allowed to by the State?

@ Cornflower: "Moreover, the Greens are like bulls in a china shop, they really haven't thought through what they are doing."

Well, if you HAVE thought it through, tell us why marriage equality shouldn't be allowed. As Woulfe has pointed out, we're still waiting for an answer to this mind-bogglingly simple question. The closest you've come so far is to claim that gay marriage will, in defiance of history and current reality, lead to legal polygamy.

In algebra, your formulation could be expressed "if A equals B, A must also equal cornflakes".

This thread is truly bizarre.

@Philo: "The fact is that biologically persons of the same gender cannot marry, it is biologically impossibility. The purpose of sperm it to fertilize and fuse with an ovum to form a new person. If homosexual males copulate fertile sperm vaginally with a female are they biologically married, and fulfil the biological term marriage."

In the spirit of generosity, I'll put aside the basic fact that marriage is a social and legal contract and has nothing to do with biology.

I am, however, very interested in which Christian denomination you belong to, Philo. To my knowledge, no law or religious principle forbids marriage between infertile heterosexuals, yet this is clearly an article of your faith. Which church is that?

My option would be to have a Referendum
on same-sex marriage.

Let Australia decide whether it's time
to allow gay marriage in this country.

In a democracy it's supposed to be the
choice of the majority.

At present we have an attitude of -
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Which is simply an excuse for inaction used
by the complacent, arrogant, or scared, as
I've stated previously.

Let the country vote on the matter.

In the biological world of breeding marriage means bringing together two of the opposite sex to form a new being. In the world of metalurgy marriage means bonding metals of different character together to form or strengthen a product. That is the root meaning of the word. Persons of the same sex cannot technically marry, as their relationship does not form a unit demonstrating difference in gene or biological character.

The term marry has preceded the Romans legal contract. A marriage itself is not a legal contract but a physical sexual union of gender difference.

Why should what gays do to each other be considered marriage? When you can answer that maybe you might understand why they cannot be accepted as being married.

Philo et al,

As biological technology and social norms change, so do the laws to reflect not only what is possible, but what has been deemed to be acceptable.

Laws from Roman times defined christians as lion food and slaves as property. I would like to think we have moved on.

As the number of births outside wedlock now equal those in wedlock, and that many gay (lesbian and other) partnerships are raising children successfully, the laws need to at least reflect the status quo.

The reluctance to allow gay marriage comes from two sources, religion and homophobia, which are not mutually exclusive.

With changes happening over the world, it is really a matter of when rather than if gay marriage will be written into law.

Everyone is keen to set an example to the world on climate change, but not on discrimination.

Philo,

So you would readily accept that the formation of a zygote is the marriage of genetic material. Does the union between a Man and Women achieve that state in itself? Would not the coupling of a Man and Women or two same sex persons be analogous to mixture, whereas an offspring analogous to a compound.

It seems that Rudd is now under pressure from the Victorian branch of the ALP to amend the Marriage Act to allow gay marriage:

<< Rudd pressed on gay rights

November 23, 2009

THE Victorian ALP has challenged the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, to legislate for gay marriage.

Labor's state conference overwhelmingly passed a resolution at the weekend calling for gay and lesbian couples to be given the same rights as heterosexual couples, including the right to state-sanctioned marriage.

The resolution, which is supported by state ministers and which attracted cross-factional support, calls on the Federal Government to change the Marriage Act to allow for "equal access to marriage, regardless of the gender of either partner".>>

http://tiny.cc/eEqvR

It'll be interesting to see whether Rudd pays more attention to the ACL than the ALP. Methinks that the days of discrimination against homosexuals with respect to marriage are numbered.

Foxy, "Let the country vote on the matter."

Agree totally, you have gone straight to the crux of my concerns.

There really must be direct consultation with the electorate on such significant legislation.

It is also the only way to surface all ideas, give everyone a say, including the many thousands of ordinarily quiet people and ensure any credibility of the end solution.

Many people would like a completely open debate on the necessary limitation of continuing intrusion by government intrusion into their affairs by government and the justification for and necessary extent of government support for married and de facto couples.

What I find incredible is that there hasn't even been any reckoning of the cost of proposed changes.

Sancho, "Well, if you HAVE thought it through, tell us why marriage equality shouldn't be allowed."

With respect, I do not have all of the solutions and no-one else does either and especially the Greens, who continually go off half-cocked to get publicity and never, ever, take responsibility for tying up all of the loose ends. That is why there must be full and open discussion, not more back room deals.

All we hear from is the noisy zealots as they take sides and try to force others into take sides to suit them. There is another, decent, responsible, accountable and democratic path which as Foxy has said is to have a referendum. Or another less costly alternative would be for the Greens to run with 'Changing the Marriage Act' as their number one election issue for the next federal election, which is not so far away anyway.

Oliver,
Two elements the same is not a mixture. A mixture implies different elements.

All this talk about discrimination is absolute nonsense. It is as relative as banning males from frequenting female toilets. It is not a fact of discrimination at all to identify some toilets as male and others as female. I do realise gays want unisex toilets too, and sex changes funded by the State.

Dear Cornflower,

I think a Referendum is the way to go
on an issue such as this.

We're all entitled to our opinions,
but we're not entitled to impose
them on other people.

With a Referendum -
at least everyone will get to have
a say.

@ Philo: "In the biological world of breeding marriage means bringing together two of the opposite sex to form a new being."

Show me one - just one - use of the term "marriage" to describe a biological principle or process. I think this particular application is an original creation of the Philo University for Non-Reality Based Reasoning.

And we're still waiting to hear which religion you belong to that forbids infertile couples marrying.

@ Cornflower, the Caper is becoming increasingly convoluted. First, gay marriage would become polygamy. Unable to provide any sound rationale for that, and with all evidence to the contrary, you dropped the argument. Now, apparently, gay marriage is about the nanny state, Greens policies, and every other conceivable issue except gay marriage.

I admire your perseverance. Even HermanYutic jumped the thread once his credibility was shredded.

Tell us in just one sentence, Cornflower: why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to marry the same way heterosexuals can?

36 pages this thread has run, and you still haven't tried to answer the original question. I must admit, though, that I'm intensely curious to see which way you'll try to bend next to avoid the core question. Judging by the current trajectory, in a couple of pages you'll be telling us that gay marriage = global warming = Al Gore = US Democrats = Barack Obama = Kenya = Zimbabwe, and therefore legalising gay marriage in Australia directly supports Robert Mugabe.

Please proceed.

Too funny, Sancho :D

On the face of it, a referendum sounds like a good idea. Let’s get some direct democracy going, let the people decide, that would be fair, right? Wrong.

With respect, it’s very easy for someone who already has equality to argue that someone else’s equality should be put to a referendum. Voting rights for women – was that put to a referendum? Nope. Equal pay for women? Not on your life. Sure, we voted overwhelmingly to grant full citizenship to indigenous Australians in 1967, but it’s pretty shameful that a referendum was required in the first place.

Equality belongs to human beings because they are human, not because the majority says they can have it. Pause a while over the first article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and
rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience
and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

We’re born with equal rights. You didn’t have to beg your fellow citizens for equality, so I’ll need some convincing that I should.

Here’s a delightfully whimsical Irish take on the same question:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ULdaSrYGLQ

Foxy,
Yes lets have a refurrendum so one section of the community can impose its opinion on the other by law.

You said, "We're all entitled to our opinions, but we're not entitled to impose them on other people. With a Referendum - at least everyone will get to have a say."

Gays sexual behaviour will never be marriage in any technical sense of the term even if they call it marriage. Their agenda has a more sinister motive and that is to inforce the community to accept their sexual behaviour as the norm, and be able to prosecute those who object to such behaviour. They hope to turn the tables on those who agree it is a disgusting sexual perversion

The real position of gays is that if they can normalise their relationship in law as normal social behaviour then any opinion opposing that will be considered defamatory and illegal and be able to prosicute at law such expressions as defamatory.

However they fail to recognise normal biological design and human function. The majority of persons who are infertile through no choice of their own does not deny them the desire to become parents. Most persons entering marriage do so with an intent to raise a family; even persons in defacto relationships when intending children desire marriage to give their children security and family identity.

Just to clarify, Philo:

Marriage is only marriage if entered into by heterosexuals for the purpose of reproduction, except if they can't reproduce but want to, which is okay, despite being a contradiction. Oh, and it's still marriage between heterosexuals who can reproduce but don't want to, and also those who can't reproduce and also don't want to, even though that's the complete opposite of the original principle.

So, "marriage" is meaningless and can be defined on the spot by anyone hoping to win an argument. Brilliant!

Look out, Christians - Philo's a secret agent for the gay marriage movement!

Now, show us where "marriage" is being used as a biological term.

I'd like to Thank everyone for their contributions
to this discussion. It's been an interesting one and
an emotional one at times. The topic appears to create
controversy - and many points of view.
However I find that I've nothing
more to add to the topic - and I don't see the point
in being repetitive.

This is an issue that we as a society will
eventually have to decide on. It's not a question
of a "minority" imposing their views on us all.
I think it's a question of what the majority sees
as being fair and eqitable. And, in a democracy -
its the way the majority votes that decides things.
You may not have voted for the current government,
for example, but the rest of the country did.
The same will hopefully apply to same-sex marriage.
It's should be up to the country to decide what kind
of society they want to live in.

Anyway, All The Best to you all.
See you on another thread.