Assuming that marrriage is a commitment of two or more persons to share their lives I don't see why government has to be involved at all in a ritual binding. It can simply be a contractual arrangement dealing with property and other issues like any other contractual arrangement. If religious groups require a ceremony or the marriage pair or group want a ceremony that should be their own business.

If there are children involved regardless of what relationship produced them the government should be responsible to see that children are not mistreated and have the opportunities that children should have.

'If Portugal can allow same-sex marriage, why not Australia? '

If Japan can slaughter whales why can't Australia?
If Iran jails homosexuals why can't Australia?

The question is really pretty silly.

In this case I agree with runner. Let us do what we feel is right. Whatever Portugal does is the business of Portugal. Morality or what is right is not decided by what others do.

Wow - I was about to say exactly what runner said (well, pretty close, anyway). The logic in the title of this post is on par with a little kid: 'if Jimmy can have a lolly, why can't I?'

@runner and david f

I remember back when to the arugments over wether Australia should legalise gay sex or not, and your comments pretty much mirror what was said in those debates which went on for years and as a result was one of the last western countries to fully legalise gay sex back in 1994. I can guarantee that once gay marriage is legalised Australia will look back in shame at the silly arugments against gay marriage, just like with the debates on wether to legalise gay sex or not. Also you cannot compare Australia to Iran as its not a western country and as for Japan they actually allow its citizens to marry same-sex partners who have citizenship in countries where gay marriage is legally approved - unlike Australia. So even Japan is more advanced than us when it comes to marriage equality.

The question I ask is that why do gay people want marriage in the traditional sense anyway? After all, what is marriage today, or rather, what has it become?

Starting back in the 70's, marriage became nothing more than a bit of paper which could easily be torn up (metaphorically speaking) with the stroke of a magistrates pen. In fact movies stars and others who think their lives are somehow interesting to others have been divorcing for centuries.

Few people taking the vows of marriage today believe that they are in any way committed to a long lasting relationship "in sickness and in health, richer or poorer, etc." The marriage is more often than not about an attempt to imitate life as seen via the TV soapies complete with all the lavish wedding breakfasts, an expensive wedding gown that will never fit again after the babies have arrived, plus excessive amounts wasted on over-sized houses (not homes, there's a difference) filled with all manner of indulgence and often racked up on credit.

The traditional notion of marriage has changed completely in the last couple of decades, so what do gay couples see in that piece of paper that the vast majority of others don't? I believe there is already legislation in place to share property and assets following the death of a gay partner or a separation, so what's all the fuss about?

Sorry if I'm not attuned to all matters relating to gay marriage. The above is only my opinion and that's what this site is all about. People's opinions!

Dear Jason84,

I am not against gay marrige, polygamous marriage or heterosexual couple marrige. I don't feel government should be involved in marriage outside of enforcing contracts concerning property and seeing that children are treated well.

However, runner's point that we should not base our laws on what another country does is a valid one.

@Aime and david f

Regardless if you want to get married or not, Marriage should be an option for same-sex couples. And yes Im not a fan of marriage but it should be an option for gays and lesbians - thats where I stand on the issue.

If two people are silly enough to want to marry each other, what business is it of the State or anybody else?

Same old, same old - but it would be kind of good to see PM Gillard sticking to at least one principle by supporting gay marriage.

When someone clamours for something that has no value just for the sake of equality then we must wonder what their real agenda is. Do people like Rodney Croombe demand the right to have cancer just because the person next door has it?

Marriage adds absolutely nothing to any relationship. There are millions of heterosexual and homosexual couples who see no point in getting married because it adds nothing to their relationship. Many homosexuals claim that they want the rights that heterosexual married people have. What exactly are these advantages and are they really worth involving the government and other institutions in your relationship? Where does personal integrity come into it if you are prepared to sell your autonomy just for the sake of having something that someone else has? If you are getting married for these reasons then what does that say about your attitude to marriage – that it is something you go through just to get a few perks from the government? How would your partner know if you were marrying them out of love or just for the sake of petulantly taking advantage of something because you can.

The government should not be involved in these relationships at all and just because a government is does not make it right. Governments are involved in many things that they should not be. Those who support any kind of marriage obviously do not value autonomy and freedom from unnecessary government intervention.

There are no good arguments for legalising any relationship which is based purely on the fact that two people have sex with each other

What's the big deal about gays wanting to marry (or even co-habit)? Yeah right - a medieval ideology by the religious right about procreation, a habit the gays don't do so well at and what Righty believes will sabotage their agenda to breed like bloody rabbits!

@ Phanto:

"There are no good arguments for legalising any relationship which is based purely on the fact that two people have sex with each other"

Well Phanto, Im gay and I see my realtionship more than just sex, the sex is only a tiny part of the relationship. I see marriage as a great way to celebrate our love together and its a beautiful thing. It seems the government is sending a message saying that our long term relationships are worthless. The government wont even let me get married in some countries in Europe because in May 2006, the then Howard government attorney General Philip Ruddock blocked a gay Australian man from marrying in Europe. Ruddock refused to grant a gay man living in the Netherlands a 'Certificate of No Impediment to Marriage' document required by some European countries before marriage, to prove foreigners are in fact single. So if a same-sex couple moves to europe to live and start a life, they still cant get married even though where they are gay marriage is legal, Explain that?

Well I’ve been single all my life and will probably die so, but surely its common knowledge that the government of whichever land has to get involved in private relationships between couples hetro and homo, because it involves property laws, taxation laws, social/death benefit laws and the rights of spouses and probably more that I haven’t thought of yet.

Tis the government after all that makes and enforces the laws of the land, appoints and maintains the judiciary and all the other things relevant to our orderly society under law that many others outside, look on with envy.

"Marriage adds absolutely nothing to any relationship. There are "millions of heterosexual and homosexual couples who see no point in getting married because it adds nothing to their relationship."

Rubbish- although more and more Australians are cohabiting for years before they marry (which in my books is a very responsible thing to do), the vast majority of people in de-facto relationships still go on to marry eventually.

That they now overwhelmingly choose to do so with civil celebrants quashes any religious arguments about same sex marriage.

What marriage adds to a relationship is a statement of intention- a statement about their hopes for their relationship to endure and last and that they want their friends and family and their community to understand and respect that intention.

In comparison the message that staying de-facto sends is "we're alright... for now".

"It is disappointing to many Australians that Julia Gillard believes only opposite-sex partners should be allowed to marry."

Why disappointing? Have you not noticed yet that Julia, despite being a pretty face and a good speaker that brings her temporary public support, is otherwise constrained by the same forces that drove earlier leaders to the same policies that most of us don't want and don't need?

The similarities between Julia and previously discarded leaders are more telling than the small differences. She continues to ally us with a dishonest, hypocritical, bullying, warmongering USA, involving us in unnecessary overseas wars that play their part in driving both the USA and its other allies into crippling debt. Julia also wants Australia to support Israel, a belligerant , nuclear armed, racist little country responsible for causing most of the world's troubles for decades. Despite having a huge backlog of matters that need to be put right (which is her job) Julia has already wasted a day attending the funeral of one of the Australian soldiers killed whilst doing his job. A day plus the drain on our tax dollars to pay for her luxury class transportation around the country to attend media opportunities like this. Her main (unstated) aim, as with leaders before her, is to get her own (labor) party or a similar (liberal) party elected at the next election, pretending that there can be no logical alternative choice.

Sorry you are disappointed, because with Gillard you are going to get more more more of the same same same! It's called stability in government, and they tell us we like it!

All Australians should have the same rights and protection. There should be equality under the law, but as long as same-sex couples are unable to get married, the law discriminates.

It is of nobody's business why people want to get married and everybody should be free to take or leave this, and any other service or arrangement no matter what their sexual orientation is.

This is not an article to discuss the pro's/con's of marriage- the point is that it is about time to give same-sex couples the exact same rights as heterosexual couples.

Same-sex couples have no adoption right, but perhaps this is about to change, at least in NSW:
"The NSW Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby (GLRL) welcomes the introduction of the Adoption Amendment (Same-Sex Couples) Bill which promotes the best interests of children living in same-sex families by proposing amendments to the NSW Adoption Act to allow same-sex couples eligibility to adopt."

Why make 1001 little amendments in the law, one by one. Why not bite the bullet and make one law for all.
So simple!

"Eighty per cent of gay and lesbian Australians believe they should have the choice to marry their same-sex partner. A majority would marry if they could."

If that is so why has there been such a poor response to Centrelink's Couples are Couples initiative? There are reports too that same sex coupes now feel they are being discriminated against through being treated the same as heterosexual couples.

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

Best solution, move to Portugal!

Problem solved!

Sorry, I forgot the paste the link to that quote. Wish there was an edit button!
http://tinyurl.com/324bz3j

Cornflower, any opposition to Centerlink's "Couples are Couples" initiative are understandable if you look at it like this:
If you were in a same-sex relationship, would you want to be just equal enough only to receive cuts in payments just like heterosexual couples but still not equal enough to get permission to marry?

What Celivia said. It's simply a question of equal rights. Regardless of what any other country does or doesn't do, gay couples who want to marry in Australia are being discriminated against, and that should end.

Cornflower: << ...why has there been such a poor response to Centrelink's Couples are Couples initiative? >>

Gee, I dunno... let me think... oh right - they'd have their income reduced. I imagine that any reduction in a Centrelink benefit would be significant, and quite a disincentive to 'come out' as a couple, wouldn't you think?

Besides which, I thought this discussion's about same-sex marriage, rather then gay de facto couples on welfare benefits.

@jason84-
I would have thought we were talking about relationships whose defining factor is that the partners have sex. Would you be happy to see a couple of mates also entitled to the same rights as married couples? How about two sisters or a grandmother and her housekeeper?

"It seems the government is sending a message saying that our long term relationships are worthless." Why do you care what the government thinks about your relationship? Why do you care what anyone else thinks? You do not have to justify your relationship to anyone. Are you after rights or after some kind of permission?

@ Andrew M. Potts -
"What marriage adds to a relationship is a statement of intention- a statement about their hopes for their relationship to endure and last and that they want their friends and family and their community to understand and respect that intention."
Why do they need that? Why do they feel the need to state their intention? They are free agents and can live their relationships however they like - do they also state their intention about other relationships in their lives with friends and family? Why do they want their community to understand and respect their choices? Are they not comfortable with them in themselves?

Pantho,

Comparing sister-sister marriage to same-sex marriage would be like comparing heterosexual marriage to sister-brother marriage, wouldn't it?

If a grandmother and her housekeeper want to get married, they should be able to- whether the housekeeper is female or male (Who's the Boss?).

"Why do they need that? Why do they feel the need to state their intention?"
Who cares? Perhaps heterosexual couples feel this need and don't have to justify it to anyone, do they? Why should same-sex couples be questioned about why they want to get married and be judged?
As I said, none of anyone's business why they want to get married.

Why all this questioning and interference in the lives of same-sex people?

Celivia is right.
Why is it anyone else's business who marries who?

Why do some people feel threatened by gay couples wanting to marry?

What possible harm can this do to anyone else- religious or not?

I really don't care who marries who, and I still believe that marriage is preferable to de-facto relationships.

However, I would never judge or stop anyone living together as a couple, as long as they are consenting adults.

@Phanto

Typical scare scaremongering. I was hoping to have a debate with you, however when you resort to silly reasoning Im not going to bother with you.

@Cornflower

"If that is so why has there been such a poor response to Centrelink's Couples are Couples initiative?"

Thats because most gay couples are not a clients of Centrelink, So its assumed that Centrelink's Couples are Couples initiative would be pointless to attend and take part in.

I have never really understood why gay couples would want to marry in the traditional sense. Is marriage not a religious ceremony. This would be asking the very people that have for 2000 years condemned their souls for what they believe to be an evil act to go agains't all they stand for just to prove a point for the opposing camp. Is this not just a little strange?
Civil ceremonies are surly the answer, and yes the government should do something about it.

CJ Morgan writes:

<< If two people are silly enough to want to marry each other, what business is it of the State or anybody else? >>

Hahahaha. Yes, if you want to get married, then what does it matter if you are hetero or homo? Either way you’d have to be pretty dumb!! ( :>)

Stay single if you know what is good for you!!

But hey I agree with CJ – Gillard should lighten up and not impose restrictions where restrictions are not needed. She should support gay marriage, under the principle that in a democracy we should have as much freedom as possible, and only suffer lawful restrictions where absolutely necessary.

jason84, "Thats because most gay couples are not a clients of Centrelink, So its assumed that Centrelink's Couples are Couples initiative would be pointless to attend and take part in."

I doubt that would be the case because Centrelink's estimates would be based on its own information and population/income data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Centrelink is convinced that less than half of the the gay couples receiving Centrelink entitlements has identified as gay couples.

Further, Centrelink is being seen as 'discriminatory' for using any of the simple interview questions to reveal possible fraud.

It is probably true that the State intervention in gay relationships, especially the legislative initiatives that have been demanded by some activists and by the Greens in particular, are contrary to the wishes of most or many gays. Most gays did not ask for or want the government to be involved in their bedrooms. Matter of fact few people, regardless of sexual preference ever wanted the State to involve itself in 'de facto' relationships, but of course they were never asked either.

Similarly the same interfering, meddlesome, 'we know what is best for you' commentariat who advocated extension of the de facto definition and legislation are now demanding more interference by the State in gay relationships.

Australia is becoming a big joke, "fair go" is obsolete. Think Australia through its governments has become ignorant & intolerant to what a "Fair Go" use to be all about. It's a wonder anyone would want to come to this down-under backwater.

The reasonable thing to do is the reasonable thing to do

it is reasopnable to tolerate the abnormal

it is not reasonable to embrace it

Allowing same-sex marriages onto the statute book is to embrace the abnormal

therefore is should not be allowed in Australia or Portugal for that matter but the Portugese are a strange bunch anyway.

I see that Cornflower's being typically obtuse on this issue. jason84's point, which seems to be valid, is that most gay couples aren't Centrelink clients. Given that fact and the financial disincentive for identifying to Centrelink as a a gay couple, it is disingenuous at best to assert that the reluctance of gay couples who are clients of Centrelink to identify as such has any bearing at all on the issue of discrimination against those gay couples who wish to marry.

<< It is probably true that the State intervention in gay relationships, especially the legislative initiatives that have been demanded by some activists and by the Greens in particular, are contrary to the wishes of most or many gays. >>

How do you know this? Certainly, on the basis of contributions from gay people at OLO and from what gay friends tell me, the removal of lingering forms of discrimination against them is pretty well universally supported by the gay community and gay activists.

There is no good reason for prohibiting gay people who want to from marrying. The homophobia - explicit or otherwise - of others is certainly no excuse to perpetuate discrimination.

You don't need anyone to "allow" you to marry. You just marry. That's what makes a couple married - the act of explicitly taking each other to be partners.

The belief that marriage is something that the government, or the church, does to the parties is false.

Neither the gumment nor the church claims that anything they do constitutes the act of marriage. The role of the government or the church in officiating at a marriage is only to *recognise* the marriage which is constituted by the act of the parties. Marriage pre-dates both church and government by many thousands of years. Government did not start to register marriages until the 19th century, and marriage had been around for many thousands of years before that. And the church didn't start officiating at marriages until the 17th century.

The fact that government registers heterosexual marriages is not an argument in favour of the registration of homosexual marriages. It is an argument in favour of the abolition of governmental regulation and registration of sexual relationships.

As usual, the enemies of equality aren’t letting the facts deter them from having a swipe at same-sex-attracted Australians:

>> If that is so why has there been such a poor response to
>> Centrelink's Couples are Couples initiative? There are
>> reports too that same sex coupes now feel they are being
>> discriminated against through being treated the same as
>> heterosexual couples.

In the 2006 Census 49,366 people identified themselves as a partner in a same-sex de facto relationship - just shy of 25,000 couples: http://www.coalitionforequality.org.au/2006census.pdf
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features20March%202009

In January 2010 Centrelink announced that 4245 couples had registered themselves http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/lifematters/gay-couples-register-with-centrelink-for-welfare-20100130-n5ho.html

The fact that 17% of known same-sex couples in this country have promptly registered their relationships with Centrelink exposes the above claim as just another piece of homophobic slobbering.

@Cornflower

"It is probably true that the State intervention in gay relationships, especially the legislative initiatives that have been demanded by some activists and by the Greens in particular, are contrary to the wishes of most or many gays. Most gays did not ask for or want the government to be involved in their bedrooms. Matter of fact few people, regardless of sexual preference ever wanted the State to involve itself in 'de facto' relationships, but of course they were never asked either."

All the same-sex couples I know just want to be treated the same as an average heterosexual couple, so obviously that means the government has to intervene in same-sex realtionships to ideally provide us in same-sex realtionships the same rights as heterosexual couples. If the government did not become involved in same-sex realtionships then there would be discrimination in law, and how would we be treated equal?

@Jefferson ‘The fact that government registers heterosexual marriages is not an argument in favour of the registration of homosexual marriages. It is an argument in favour of the abolition of governmental regulation and registration of sexual relationships.’

This is precisely the crux of the issue especially when taxpayers’ money is spent on regulation and registration of sexual relationships. I suspect that many homosexual people do not want this situation to change. They equate regulation and registration with acceptance of that relationship on some kind of moral rights basis. This is what they truly seek. It must be that they want some government recognition of their relationship since the practical advantages are either not worth having or are not justifiable for either heterosexual or homosexual relationships. The fact that governments are involved in marriage relationships at all is an aberration which has long outgrown its tenure. Homosexual people who want to be included in such a waste of taxpayer’s funds are not looking for anything more than an affirmation of the equality of their relationship with some other group – in this case heterosexual married people. If they were truly comfortable with their relationship they would not need anyone else’s seal of approval.

It is a timely reminder to governments as well; that they should not be seen to be neither condoning nor condemning any types of sexual union by spending government resources on them.

The story woulfe linked to describes the collateral damage from unnecessary State interference in and disruption to private lives from changes to family law:

'The Welfare Rights Centre runs a federally funded information line. Director Maree O'Halloran said: "The calls to our centre are overwhelmingly from people over 55, and many are fearful of being publicly identified as gay or lesbian."

"Many people are agonising over whether they fit the Centrelink definition of a couple and in some cases have disagreed about whether to declare. Sadly, some lifelong relationships have disintegrated under new pressures, such as financial interdependency, for the first time."'

Centrelink is also empowered to make moral judgements about the lifestyles and living arrangements of the old and others on fixed or low incomes who are forced by economic circumstances to share digs. For example, students on Youth Allowance:

http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/payments/ya_independent.htm

jason84,
Bad law discriminates against everyone. Why should people who for decades have been perfectly able to decide their own personal arrangements, be told by the State whether they are in a de facto relationship or not? By what right do you presume to make decisions for others?

Phanto et al,
"If they were truly comfortable with their relationship they would not need anyone else’s seal of approval."

Are you saying that everyone who gets married does so because he/she is not comfortable with the relationship? So what? There are many reasons why people might want to get married, and all of these reasons are none of anyone's business.

Perhaps opponents of same sex marriage should stop making a big song and dance about side issues like 'the value of marriage' or 'govt interference' and focus on the real issue: discrimination.
What if you'd replace the words "same sex marriage" with "mixed race marriage" or something, then it becomes obvious how terribly discriminative the law is.

There needs to be equality, and as long as one group of people is not getting the same rights as other groups of people automatically receive, then there is no equality.

Be against marriage for whatever reason- that's perfectly fine. But do not single out one group and prevent that group from getting married just because you are against marriage.
Protest by all means, but do not use a certain group as some kind of pawn to prove a point. This is an unfair and discriminative way to go about it.

@Celivia

If you are against government intervention for all marriages how can you be considered discriminatory when you suggest that one group who are part of that 'all' should not be subject to government intervention?

'There are many reasons why people might want to get married'
There are, but none of them are logical.

'Perhaps opponents of same sex marriage should stop making a big song and dance about side issues like 'the value of marriage'
It is hardly a side issue. If you think marriage has no value then logically it follows that homosexual marriage has no value and therefore should not be supported. It is up to everyone who wants taxpayer dollars spent on them to justify that expense with good reasons. Nobody in this discussion has come up with a good argument to justify marriage and therefore they have not made a justifiable claim for whatever government support or involvement they want.

Phanto,

You simply don't get it.
It doesn't matter whether people's reasons to get married are logical or not.
If heterosexual couples can get married for illogical reasons, then same-sex couples should have the option to do the same.
This is what I and others like CJ said all along.

There is no logical reason why homosexuals, as the only group in the whole of Australia, should not have the option to get married when everybody else does have that option.

Imagine that homosexuals would be the only group that didn't have the option to use an automated car wash, would you then say that it didn't matter because it would be a waste of water to use a car wash anyway, and that it was illogical to want to wash your car, or that it would have no value to drive around in a clean car?

The particular issue doesn't really matter to me. What matters is that every Australian should have the same rights and not be excluded from an activity or service as a group. It is discriminatory no matter what kind of illogical fabrication to justify that discrimination you'd come up with.

@Cornflower

The state and federal government regulate practially everything. Look we gays and lesbian couples want to be treated like heterosexual couples and because heterosexual couples relationships are regulated under law then for us to be equal then we need our relationships to be regulated as well to be equal. Common sense suggests that if gay and lesbian relationships are not reconised under law then they will face discrimination. Its all about wanting to be equal.

Stern: <"...it is not reasonable to embrace it.>"

Nobody is asking anyone whose orientation is otherwise to embrace homosexuality, just to stop irrationally standing in the way of one group participating as citizens.

I recall hospital staff preventing a fellow from being with his partner during the palliative stage of his illness. Their arguments included that the dying man's family wouldn't want him there and that only next-of-kin were allowed at bedside. Unless partners are recognized legally as such, there are all sorts of ways that exclusion can be cruelly applied.

Some of the arguments here would be hilarious if they they didn't have such awful impact on other people.

I see some folk who are non-religious/anti-Christianity/pro Libertarian suddenly championing moral values and tradition - but I bet they would have a blue fit if anyone suggested, especially on moral grounds, that they dispose of their porn stash or limit their sexual activity or stop working on Sundays or stop defying any of a whole range of cultural artefacts that have come down through history; filtered into current society through our Christian belief system.

It's a strange and interesting form of hypocrisy that in a society where "anything goes", there is a line being drawn against same sex love/sex.... Oh, I forgot - unless it's female homosexuality (or some semblance of it) performing for the titillation of all those 'normal' heterosexuals.

pffft. hypocrites

I wish that government would get out of the marriage business. However, as long as they are in the marriage business I see no reason to deny it to same sex couples.

In our present society civil marriage is a necessity. If we don't have it then clergy decide who can get married. That's the way it is in Israel.

Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights people have the right to marry who they choose. If they choose someone who is of the same sex or doesn't share their religious beliefs that should be no impediment.

jason84. "Look we gays and lesbian couples want to be treated like heterosexual couples"

Who says? You says?!

If you read the link provided by another poster you will find that homosexuals, like heterosexuals, do not want government to be horning in on their private lives and determining their 'couple' status as de factos. Similarly university students and old people sharing digs can be subjected to the moral judgement of Centrelink and to their detriment. Here is that link again:
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/lifematters/gay-couples-register-with-centrelink-for-welfare-20100130-n5ho.html

There's that homophobic obtuseness again. The topic is gay people who want to be able to marry like anybody else and Cornflower wants to blab on about de facto gay couples on Centrelink benefits.

Personally, I'm inclined to give more weight to the opinions of gay people like woulfe or jason84 on this issue, than to that of a disingenuous old straight.

Cornflower:
"If you read the link provided by another poster you will find that homosexuals, like heterosexuals, do not want government to be horning in on their private lives and determining their 'couple' status as de factos."

That's utter nonsense as an argument against same-sex marriage. Many homosexuals, like heterosexuals, do want the same right to get married, and while heterosexuals have that choice, homosexuals do not have that choice.

For the ones who do not like marriage: They don't have to get married!

Great post, Pynchme! Hypocrites indeed!

Valiant posts Celivia, CJ Morgan, welcome Jason84.

Davidf

I agree that marriage (or not) should not be any of the government's business, however when property, illness, wills and visiting rights are only available to heterosexuals, the government is involved by default.

Cornflower

Could you please make the exact same arguments, but instead substitute 'inter-racial' for homosexual or 'inter-faith' for homosexual? Thank you.

As for Centrelink's policies, the government believes that people who are having sex and living together can do so more cheaply than people sharing accommodation but not having sex. That this is a completely illogical policy is the reason gays, lesbians and other de-factos try to evade the "couples are couples" rule - who can blame them? It is a rusted on piece of anachronism dating from when males were expected to financially support their female partners. It's a load of bollocks and hardly a strong argument against same sex marriage. If it even counts as argument.

>> The story woulfe linked to describes the collateral damage
>> from unnecessary State interference in and disruption to
>> private lives from changes to family law:

No it doesn’t. It shows that even though equality with heterosexual de facto couples has come with financial setbacks and personal discomfort for many, welfare recipients in same-sex relationships are embracing it.

>> Similarly university students and old people sharing digs
>> can be subjected to the moral judgement of Centrelink
>> and to their detriment.

No they can’t. Centrelink acts within the law, as it is required to do. Where a welfare recipient is residing at the same address as another person, Centrelink is obliged to satisfy itself that benefits are being paid at the appropriate rate. The relevant policy can be found here: http://www.facs.gov.au/guides_acts/ssg/ssguide-2/ssguide-2.2/ssguide-2.2.5/ssguide-2.2.5.10.html

Note in particular, about half way down the page:
>> “A thorough investigation is to take place before a decision
>> is made, and where possible all evidence is to be verified
>> by external sources in writing. Unless evidence is available,
>> the decision-maker should not form an opinion that a person
>> is a member of a couple.
>> Note: Moral judgements or suspicions are not relevant to
>> the decision.

Determinations by Centrelink employees are subject to review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal http://www.aat.gov.au/

It hasn’t been easy for welfare recipients in same-sex relationships to adjust to their new circumstances. Lies spread by homophobic blowhards don’t help.

Maybe now we can get back to the topic.

woulfe, "Maybe now we can get back to the topic."

Never you mind, huh?

I guess that in the sort of totalitarian State imagined by the Left and the Greens it would be possible to avoid discussion of the widespread community angst about serious anomalies resulting from
the ham-fisted botching up of Family law.

I have already pointed to examples where the de facto ('cohabiting') provisions cause bureaucrats to make moral decisions about the previously private and boringly normal lives of ordinary citizens. What can be more ordinary than young students enjoying the pleasures of student life or sharing digs because they cannot afford their own place? However such students can be required to 'prove' they are not co-habiting and can even have their later income and assets at risk from opportunist interpretation of de facto law.

This is the inevitable result of political deals done in back rooms, without reference to the electorate.

Portugal has retained its previous laws regarding adoption and that is reason enough to oppose any change in Australia, right? Never you mind you say, the cherry picking in this case is concerned exclusively with gay marriage.

Let's cut the crap, shall we?

Cornflower - why shouldn't those gay couples who wish to marry in Australia be allowed to?

Please try and stick to the topic.

It depends what you mean by 'marry'. If homosexuals want to marry just like heterosexual people and have the same 'rights' you need to be clear about exactly what rights they are. Is it the right to a marriage certificate? Is it the right to a share in the estate after a partner dies? Is it the right to be present as next of kin? These are all rights to practical issues which should be solved by the government without needing to enquire about the sexual relationship of the people involved. The fact that the government has failed to do this is a serious wrong. That wrong is not made right by including more people into the wrong doing.

Marriage certificates could be given to any two people who want them - two mates. two brothers, a man and his landscape gardener. They are worthless pieces of paper in themselves but have come to be a ticket to avail oneself of things which the government should not be deciding. If you want other rights then fight for them without surrendering your right to keep your sexual life to yourself. It is much better to have your dignity and integrity than submit to needless government intervention in your private life.

If by 'marry' you mean a public ceremony in which you declare your love, then go ahead and have one so long as it doesn't include government involvement at any level.If all that people wanted was to be married then they could easily redefine the meaning of marriage to something else. Have your own celebrant, invite all your friends and be content in your own mind that you are truly married. If you want taxpayers funds spent on even one piece of paper then you do not have a right to that. Neither homosexual or heterosexual. The fact that heterosexual people have those rights now is wrong and giving them to homosexuals would be just as wrong.

C J Morgan, "If two people are silly enough to want to marry each other"

Given your moronic dismissal of marriage would you care?

Then there is your outspoken revulsion of all things religious, except Islam of course. Speaking of which, your Greenbot creed is opposed to polygamy, why? Are Muslims always to less than equal in some respects - as decided by you of course?

Come on, phanto and Cornflower - don't avoid the question.

Given that everybody else in Australia is legally entitled to marry their partner if they so desire, why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to as well?

Please don't try and change the subject again.

Just because someone is legally entitled to something does not mean they should do it or even that it is morally right to do it. Our law makers are not infallible.

Who should define 'partner'?

@Cornflower

"Who says? You says?!"

Well as far as Im concerned if the government does not reconise same-sex realtionships then we will face discrimination, I cannot make it much more clearer than that for you.

CJ, we’ve looped back into this discussion: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8779#140438

I think we should simply tiptoe away and leave them arguing with the voices in their heads.

@Cornflower

"I guess that in the sort of totalitarian State imagined by the Left and the Greens"

Thats typical, blame the left and the greens while totally ignoring what the consertive governments did while in power.

C J MJorgan, "Given that everybody else in Australia is legally entitled to marry their partner if they so desire"

That is not true at all now is it, otherwise Muslims would be able to have as many wives as they want (but you would deny them that equality).

Similarly marriage involving minors is not OK. Although your multiculturalism would excuse it where there are 'cultural' reasons, for example, Aboriginal child marriage (but not under the Marriage Act).

jason84,

Do you also see any of the above examples as 'discrimination'?

woulfe,

The Marriage Act is fine as it is and that was confirmed very recently in the Australian Senate. Can't get any more democratic than that.

However, if the Greens were true to their word they would put Gay Marriage up as the Number One plank in their platform for the forthcoming election. That they have consistently refused to do that in past elections says a lot about their politics and opportunism.

Good question, Severin, but I doubt that you will receive an answer.

CJ is right of course.
Both Cornflower and Phanto are avoiding the question and are still tap dancing around the real issue: Discrimination.

Cornflower,
"Portugal has retained its previous laws regarding adoption and that is reason enough to oppose any change in Australia, right?"

At least you are finally addressing part of the real issue here.
I agree that it is ridiculous that Portugal fobbed off same-sex couples with pseudo-marriage and STILL discriminate, but this doesn't mean that Australia needs to be as backward as Portugal. There is no reason why Australia should differentiate between heterosexual marriage and same-sex marriage.

Other points made by Phanto, CF et al, such as:

A general dislike of marriage,
Islam,
The Greens,
the left,
Centrelink,
State interference,
Taxpayers' money
etc

are no reasons why same-sex people should not be able to get married.

I see that phanto's shifted his/her argument to suggesting that nobody should be allowed to marry. Neat - no discrimination there!

Still avoiding the question, I see Cornflower. It's a pretty simple question, so why don't you have the courage of your convictions and just answer it?

Mind you, you never did last time we went down this path:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3191#75679

I find it quite fascinating the extent to which the homophobes here will go to avoid being honest. woulfe's right - we've been here many times before.

However, just because it amuses me to watch them wriggle -

Why shouldn't those gay couples who want to marry be allowed to in Australia?

Don't change the subject, shift the goalposts or otherwise dissemble - just answer the question. No need to be "PC" - just say what you really think. It can't be that hard, surely.

Why should those gay couples who want to marry be allowed to in Australia? Don't say because it is discrimination otherwise because that is not an answer to the question. Don't avoid the question and don't resort to calling people homophobes just because they disagree with you.

Not usually hangin' around OLO on a Saturday night. I must be bored.

As others have pointed out Phanto and Cornflower have dragged in everything from Totalitarianism to Centrelink benefits and then persisting with utter nonsense such as requesting definitions of "partner".

All followed by don't call us homophobes, just look at how many red herrings we can toss.

All a bit Pythonesque, luvvies.

Two adults of the same sex marrying is not a problem. We are not arguing about children, multi-partners or even marital rights for cats and dogs. Just two adults of the same sex.

Phanto and Cornflower you are a couple of bigots, homophobes, zealots, phonies, hypocrites. I am well within my rights to call you these names because each of your posts on this thread have demonstrated that you believe in discriminating against gays and lesbians, because you have an irrational fear of two people of the same sex bonking like bunnies.

Yeah the wriggling is entertaining, CJ.

Phanto,
"Why should those gay couples who want to marry be allowed to in Australia? Don't say because it is discrimination otherwise because that is not an answer to the question. Don't avoid the question and don't resort to calling people homophobes just because they disagree with you."

ROFL!
Phanto, your question is just ludicrous!
Of course discrimination is an answer to the question! It's discrimination of a minority, what else would you call it?

Telling us not to mention discrimination is like telling us not to mention blue or red while demanding to know what purple is.

After so many posts, Phanto and Cornflower still haven't been able to come up with even ONE valid reason why it is perfectly fine to discriminate against a minority in Australia.

If you do not want to be called a homophobe, then don't sound like one!
If you walk like a duck, quack like a duck...

Severin, lol, <"...each of your posts on this thread have demonstrated that you believe in discriminating against gays and lesbians, because you have an irrational fear of two people of the same sex bonking like bunnies."

I too must be bored on a cold, rainy Saturday night here Severin, but at least you gave me a laugh with your spot-on comment!

I am amazed Proxy isn't here to add his unusually strident homophobic rants to this topic.

There has been legal recognition of same-sex couples and same-sex marriage in Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain and Sweden, according to Wikipedia.

Apparently, the sky hasn't fallen in in those countries, and there hasn't been mass recruitment of the people in those countries to the practice of homosexuality since these rights have been given.

So why on earth shouldn't gay people be allowed to marry in Australia?
No real reason at all, other than an irrational fear of homosexuality by some very narrow minded people.

Cornflower,
I think your comments on Centrelink raise the question as to why aren't married people treated as individuals. If one of a married couple on Centrelink payments (even age pensions) works, then their partner's income is reduced. There are a number of anomolies and negatives to being a married couple when it comes to welfare. However that is not issue.

I must admit that I seem to be stuck with the idea that a union between two people in marriage relates to a man and a woman - as that is what the word refers to. I may be wrong but my first thought is that the word specifically is taken by hetero couples.

I do believe though that gay unions should be recognised in a legal framework the same as hetero marriages, with all the legal status etc relating to wills, seperation etc. It is really a no brainer for me, as it is about social justice, and what is right.

Maybe with another name, more people could get past their hesitation over what should be a straight forward legal option of a formal union with the associated benifits and security of marriage.

@Severin
I think your aggressive behaviour has proved that a nerve has been touched deep within you. Such defensiveness proves what you say that this argument is not really about marriage and truly is about fears. Not the fear of 'two people of the same sex bonking like bunnies' but the fear that such behaviour can be challenged and may indeed not be what you claim it to be.

Your behaviour has proved what rational argument could not prove and therefore there seems no further need to continue the debate.

Clearly, since neither phanto nor Cornflower is able or willing to say why it is that gay couples who wish to legally marry in Australia shouldn't be permitted to, they don't have a rational reason.

My conclusion is that their opposition to single sex marriage derives from homophobia, pure and simple. I guess nothing's changed since last time we had this discussion at OLO.

Aka, "I must admit that I seem to be stuck with the idea that a union between two people in marriage relates to a man and a woman - as that is what the word refers to."

Given the domination that the christian church has had over western society for such a long period that's hardly surprising. I found a couple of interesting Wikipedia pieces which might be of interest

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

It stuck out for me reading those pieces that state recognition of marriage is a relatively recent thing in terms of the length of time that people have been forming marriage like relationships. The state has well and truly embroiled itself in the business now.

There are a lot of things which have had a traditional meaning where that meaning has had to shift with the times, the number of roles which used to be very gender specific but which can be filled by men or women being one case.

I suspect that while the government continues to involve itself in the marriage business to call a similar relationship for gay and lesbian couples something else reinforces discrimination regardless of how well intended.

I can't see any serious and substantiated reasons to oppose the use of the term to describe a legally recognised and chosen kinship relationship between same sex couples by those who accept the rights and ability of same sex couples to have such a relationship.

R0bert

Any person who wishes to marry a same gender partner should of course be able to do so without any government or social interference. It is discrimination, total social bias and fear to block same sex marriages. Two people symbolising their love for one another is a sacred and special event, one in which, would also educate our future Australian generation.

R0bert,

I am not argueing against the idea, just sharing my initial thought process, and am happy to acknowledge that my understanding of the term marriage is a relatively recent construct. But from this construct I assume the formal structures and legal framework of what we know as marriage were pulled together around the modern construct of marriage.

I admit that I may find it unusual if the term marriage was used for gay marriages, but this does not mean I would object. I know some long term hetero couples who are in very stable defacto relationships that might find a formal union worthwhile as some people have fundmental problems with the social construct of marriage. When suggesting a formal union, or whatever it may be called, I was thinking that this could be a possibility. It might also get a greater number of people to demand action.

One of the negatives of defacto relationships is the complex issues that can arise if seperation occurs for whatever reason. Couples being seperated when one of them has to go into aged care is one example that springs to mind.

I wish the people who are hoping to put this on the political agenda, all the very best of luck

In the past, I've argued against same-sex marriage on the grounds that "marriage" is simply a word, and one that traditionally has religious undertones. I think our current institution of marriage certainly does have its roots in those religious customs, even in the case of civil ceremonies.

That said, with the wisdom of reflection and the maturity of a few more years under my belt, I think I've changed my tune.

Certainly marriage - even civil marriage - has religious roots. But so does Christmas, and we aren't out to stop gay people celebrating Christmas. Like Christmas (and Easter and the dreaded St. Valentine's Day), the custom of marriage has evolved and means different things to different people. That we allow marriages to be dissolved so easily certainly flies in the face of their religious sanctity. At the end of the day, the religious argument doesn't stick.

My question now is not "why do gay people want to marry, anyway?". It is "why should they not be allowed to?". I don't think the state of marriage stands to be degraded through same-sex union. I don't think it puts anyone at any real risk - not even in a spiritual sense. If gay people are gay, they are going to be gay whether they can marry or not, so preventing gay marriage isn't going to save too many souls.

My religious beliefs tell me that gay marriage - indeed, homosexuality altogether - is wrong. But my beliefs aren't everybody's beliefs, and I have no right to impose them on others. Nor does our government. You won't catch me doing it, and I will no doubt have "opinions" about gay people who marry, but the world is made up of many different types of people with many different beliefs.

@Phanto

Not once in this entire thread, have you provided a valid reason to discriminate against same-sex couples marrying.

I do not usually call people names. Any perusal of my posting history will confirm this. However, there is no other explanation for your opposing SSM other than your objection to homosexual people. Heterosexual couples may marry no matter how different their sexual practices in the bed-room may be (news for you Phanto not everyone only uses the 'missionary position'), nor are they scrutinised if they wish to have children - no matter their abilities to parent.

Two adult people (of whatever sexual orientation) who wish to declare their union in the form of a marriage has been a part of human culture long before the advent of of any of the major world religions today.

What anyone does in consent in the privacy of their own homes is none of my or your business, nor would you want it to be. Neither you nor Cornflower have offered any valid reasons against SSM - because there are none and never have been.

If you do not wish to be assumed a bigot, then the answer is simple. Stop preaching discrimination against people who are different from you.

Isn’t it amazing how we all think.

On other subjects, I find myself aligned with Cornflower and in opposition to CJ Morgan and Severin. But in this case, the reverse applies.

Julia Gillard is unlikely to make the change, as being atheist will inevitably result in an attack from the Church. Rudd was in a better position to do so.

Eventually same sex marriage will be legalised whether the union will be called 'marriage' or something else probably does not matter at the end of the day. Gen Y sees the world in a much more egalitarian light and are more open to individual freedoms. Given they will be running the country eventually, it will be interesting to see how long some of these draconian ideals remain.

SM
I suspect you are right, both Rudd and Gillard would have faced pressure from religious organisations, but at least with Rudd his religiosity would not be attacked in the same way.

Otokonoko
That was beautifully written and expressed. I wish more religious people were as generous of spirit and rational as yourself.

pelican, "Eventually same sex marriage will be legalised whether the union will be called 'marriage' or something else probably does not matter at the end of the day."

My position, just to repeat it because it serves some to continually misrepresent me, is that I do not see any reason to trash the Marriage Act. Gay marriage can be formalised through other regulation as you have identified.

There is very good sense in not trampling over the Marriage Act. For instance, it avoids the situation where many people and organisations will be put in a position where they are required by other laws to act against their own consciences.

Similarly, a regulation especially for gay couples avoids the obvious inconsistency and discrimination against Muslims and others whose beliefs, traditions and culture accept polygamy or other arrangements.

The Greens, in keeping with the modus operandi any group of activists, seek to advance a particular sectional interest or cause and have no interest in policy that includes all Australians. They have no interest in tying up loose ends either. That is apparent in their, "We are all for gays and beggar the Muslims - oh, and stuff the rest of you 'homophobes' as well".

Of course the Greens also harbour the looney anarchists, Marxists and other fringe dwellers dumped by Labor and their interest in this is to dump on yet another hated 'white' institution, so they are in for the sport and have no interest in discussion, hence the name calling and disruption, as per usual.

As pointed out previously, there have already been changes to family law that were poorly conceived and thrust upon the public without proper consultation with the electorate.

The challenge is there for the Greens to be up-front and honest and run their proposal to trash the Marriage Act as a major plank in their election platform for the forthcoming election. They say they have the numbers so why the reluctance to test the electorate?.

Correction. The sentence,

'That is apparent in their, "We are all for gays and beggar the Muslims - oh, and stuff the rest of you 'homophobes' as well".'

should have read,

'Their apparent attitude is, "We are all for gays and beggar the Muslims - oh, and stuff the rest of you 'homophobes' as well".'

The eagle-eyed will also spot the missing 'of' in the opening sentence of the same paragraph:

'The Greens, in keeping with the modus operandi (of) any group of activists'

Draft in haste...

It's clear from the great majority of responses in this thread that reasonable and rational people from a wide range of perspectives support the right of gay people to marry. Of course, there will always be a small minority of people who think that it's fine to discriminate against people because of their sexuality, but hopefully the government will eventually amend the Marriage Act to remove the current discrimination.

I see that Cornflower still refuses to answer my simple question, hiding instead behind the hateful amendments the Howard government made to the Marriage Act in 2004, that specifically prohibit same sex marriage. Nobody's talking about "trashing" the Marriage Act - all it needs is a minor amendment.

Interesting that she tries to get mileage out of the fact that the Greens are the only mainstream political party in Australia to advocate the removal of such discrimination. Cornflower, the issue here isn't the Greens' principled stance on same sex marriage, it's the bigotry of those who want to continue to treat homosexuals as second class citizens without the same rights as others.

Indeed, if you had any objection that doesn't amount to sheer homophobic bigotry, you'd have told us why gay couples who wish to marry shouldn't be allowed to in Australia. But of course you can't, can you?

Perhaps you could learn from the examples of Otokonoko and Aka, both of whom have reservations about gay marriage, but who recognise that they are insufficient to justify the continued denial of the right for gay couples to marry if they so desire. However, I won't hold my breath.

Otokonoko,
I second what Pelican said.

Cornflower,

"I do not see any reason to trash the Marriage Act."

I see no reason to trash same-sex couples by excluding them from the Marriage Act.

What do you mean by "trashing the Marriage Act" anyway?

What kind of terrible things do you have in mind that same-sex couples would do to Marriage Act as soon as they get married?
Don't high divorce rates and domestic violence perpetrated by married heterosexual couples count as 'trashing' the Marriage Act?

It has already been said that marriage has not remained unaltered throughout history.
It is an Act made for people and by people.
And, like Pelican, I believe that it is inevitable that same-sex marriage will be legalised, just as interracial relationships got accepted and later, interracial marriage was legalised while slippery-slope arguments looked more and more ludicrous.

I'm sure that racists and racist organisations would've been forced to act against their own consciences, too.

Joy to the world! (And to the Greens).

What about the simple point that I made in my first post on this thread, to which no one responded –

<< …the principle that in a democracy we should have as much freedom as possible, and only suffer lawful restrictions where absolutely necessary. >>

If it is not absolutely necessary to deny same-sex couples the freedom to marry, or have the same formal arrangement under a different name, then it should not be denied to them.

Isn’t it really that simple, in the end?

Isn’t it fundamentally antidemocratic to deny them that right?

Otokonoko: I loved reading your post. I too recall having to carefully think (and feel - spiritually) through what I'd been taught and then to weigh it all up with additional Biblical information and what I saw around me; people I knew; various injustices and suffering and such.

There are plenty of Christian based reasons (including Biblical references) that, together with placing much of what's written in the historical and cultural context of the time, to just accept people and their ways of being, just as they are.

Anyway, you haven't been alone on that spiritual journey that you describe so well.

Ludwig - You put that really well too.

Cornflower - Can you tell me if I get the gist of your last post properly. Are you making the point that, if marriage for gays is legalized and all, that some might want to get married in a church. If that church is opposed (as most are), then there'd be a legal case for discrimination? Have I understood that properly? If so, I don't know what the answer to that would be. Maybe someone else would be able to say whether or not that would be a risk for churches and the like. I just don't know.

Unfortunately prejudice decreases and increases. It is never conquered.

I believe Australia and most other western countries will eventually allow homosexuals equal rights including same-sex marriage. Then there can be a reaction. The increasing appeal of fundamentalist religion and other forms of irrationality can spark a reaction in which rights will be taken away from homosexuals and possibly they will be slaughtered. American Christian fundamentalists have succeeding in persuading Uganda to have the death penalty for homosexuals.

The Enlightenment and the American and French Revolution sparked a drive to open the ghettoes of Europe and free Jews from persecution. The Nazi reaction was horrible.

It is right, decent and honourable for homosexuals to have complete human rights including marriage. However, after they get those rights we must struggle against those who would restore the prejudiced past.

To clarify my earlier comments,

I support gay marriage, and am an atheist, however, after disposing of Rudd, JG is unlikely to try any reforms that would engender any opposition.

SM

This is one of the few occasions when we are sympatico. Julia has already exposed her throat to the religious fundamentalists by outing herself as atheist (for which I admire her), however that means any actions she makes on issues like gay marriage or eradicating religious instruction in public schools will be judged as a result of her atheism. Despite the fact that many religious people such as Otokonoko & Aka have demonstrated they have no issue for continued discrimination.

I agree with Pelican and others that it is only a matter of time before SSM will be legalised, particularly as Ludwig noted, there is no harm caused to others by gay marriage. Straights can continue to marry, breed, adopt children, divorce and whatever else they choose and so will homosexuals.

the amount of intolerance to those who oppose what is a sick joke (ie 'gay' marriage) never ceases to amaze me. What a sick message we are sending out to an already confused youth.

Runner "What a sick message we are sending out to an already confused youth."
Yeah, you'd rather continue sending out the message to youth that it is perfectly fine to discriminate against your fellow Australians just because they happen to be homosexual. Never mind that some of these young people might be homosexual and would be made guilty, or be forced to oppress their homosexual desires. These are the men who will get married despite their homosexuality, and then seek a homosexual love affair.

What do you think about Ludwig's post?
What is the harm to YOU, if same-sex couples marry?

davidf: I hadn't heard about that but went and read up on it. I am absolutely dismayed at the evil some people do under the guise of being Christian.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/world/africa/04uganda.html?_r=1

runner: You should read that story. It's dumbfounding.

Wellll well well..RODNEY pops his head up again....hmmmm

He also asks a silly question for which he seeks a knee jerk emotive sentimental answer rather than a rational one.

When Rodney was at the 'Gay Marriage' debate in Hawthorn some weeks ago, he was asked by Bill Muhlenberg the following question:

"If Gay marriage is allowed, what is there to stop other groups such as polyandry (and other permutations) lobbyists from demanding the same right"?

Rodney sought refuge in the "No..because.. no...err..because.. just because" well actually he said "Australia is traditionally a one man one woman society and so it wouldn't happen" which to me is the equivalent.

JOKE TIME... Rodney is joining the comedy festival for sure.

In the year before he made this profound observation about Aussie traditions, Kaysar Trad raised the issue of Polygamy and said we should have a debate about it......

Nuff said Rodney.. case is proven, you were wrong, are wrong and will continue to be wrong on that..and no..we DON'T want "Gay Marriage" because to many of us the very thought of a man 'marrying' a man is disgusting and insulting and an abomination to our Creator.
Not to mention a step in the delcine of our values and social cohesian from which we would be unlikely to recover.

David "is disgusting and insulting and an abomination to our Creator"

If your creator existed and was at all concerned about human activities being considered insulting or an abomination she would have much bigger things to deal with than two consenting adults marrying.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_evangelist_scandals
- http://library.thinkquest.org/C002291/high/present/stats.htm
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology
- etc, etc, etc

For a more local context (not to the same scale as the previous but insulting to any concept of a praiseworthy creator)
- http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=109&page=0#2085 (that one's views on the sexual appeal of 9 years old's is seriously creepy, and you should see how often alsatians pop up in a sexual context in his posts)

And if any kind of weird world any of that does in any way reflect the character of a creator then we should take every opportunity to offend such a vile concept.

R0bert

Al, your posts make my heart heavy. So sad.

"It is never legitimate to use the words of Scripture to promote a loveless agenda." - Right Rev. Dr. Peter Short, Moderator of the United Church of Canada

Such as here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/world/africa/04uganda.html?_r=1

<"The Bible has been perverted to uphold slavery, apartheid and segregation, to malign Jews and other non-Christian people of faith, to support Hitler's Third Reich, to resist medical science and to rebuke inter-racial marriage. It has been used to execute women as witches, to defend the racism of the Ku Klux Klan and to perpetrate intolerance and discrimination of women and sexual minorities. It took the Catholic Church 359 years to admit that they were wrong when they accused Galileo of heresy and condemned him to death unless he recanted that the earth rotates around the sun. Oh yes! The Bible has been misused and misinterpreted often over the years, and it has been misinterpreted regarding the issue of homosexuality.">

http://christiangays.com/articles/jesus_loves_me.shtml

Al - what do you think about what's happened and happening in Uganda?

I'm a middle aged, straight all my life, married mother; feminist and Christian. How is it that you aren't as passionately opposed to violence against women; to sexual abuse of children and so on? I never see you posting about those things.

(Robert, I agree with you).

>> Rodney sought refuge in the "No..because.. no...err..
>> because.. just because" well actually he said "Australia
>> is traditionally a one man one woman society and so it
>> wouldn't happen"

Anyone inclined to give this assertion the benefit of the doubt is free to follow the entire discussion on the ABC's Big Ideas program: http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/stories/2010/05/25/2907852.htm

Croome's response to Muehlenberg's claims about the slippery slope to polyamory starts at around the 27:45 mark. This is what he said:

"We understand marriage in our society as being the union between two people. In those other places which have recognised same-sex relationships … same-sex marriages it's been the same. That's why, in those places, polygamy, polyamory, hasn't been the immediate outcome. Bill, you haven't been able to explain why in Canada, or in the Netherlands, or in Spain, or in Mexico they don't allow polyamorous relationships. I would say it's because of that very deeply entrenched expectation that marriage is between two people."

The enemies of equality treat facts like one of grandma's farts - ignore it, pretend you didn't hear or smell it, and carry on regardless.

woulfe, you're not suggesting that Boazy's telling porkies again?

I'm shocked.