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