I sympathise with gay people wanting to marry. Just as they want the right to marry, many heterosexual couples wish NOT to be married, but have no rights in this regard as the government marries them off.

In fact I believe the two are related. The reason de-facto laws were changed to give de-facto partners more rights (and hence responsibilities, when no contract has been entered into) was to appease gay people wanting to marry.

I'd much rather the governmnet had let gay people marry, and leave all the heterosexual de-facto couples the option of remaining unmarried under the law.

'And not only that: after Ms Gillard had been forced by public opinion to marry her partner, she would then have been forced by public opinion to produce children, on pain of being ostracised and regarded askance as either barren, poor thing, or selfishly bizarre.

Forced? What, would she go to jail?

Wow, I better watch out for this public opinion. It sounds even more scary than 'Societal expectations'.

'# Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. '

Looks like many de-facto couples have had their human rights violated.

'The reforms of 2008 give cohabiting ("de facto") same-sex couples access to the same federal rights that cohabiting opposite-sex couples have. The Rudd government with Gillard as Deputy PM was responsible for these reforms.'

Yes, these reforms are the very ones that further denied de-facto couples their human rights.

'# Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.'
The government has effectively married my partner and I. We have made no such commitment to each other. If we had wished to commit in this way, well, we would have got married. There is no free and full consent. I feel so violated. Am I not human? Do I not have rights?

It's a human rights issue.

Hi Briar Rose,
"The Act was deliberately amended by Howard to prevent gay marriage."
Thanks for that info. it's much appreciated. I can't believe that I missed this, I must've been living under a rock, back in 2004!

Suze,
Agreed!
I think that people suffering from phobias, including homophobia, should be diagnosed to see if they are suffering from a mental illness, and if they are, they should be treated.

Proxy and diver dan,
Can you show us evidence that (adopted)(adopted) children of same-sex couples is damaging to children?
All the research on this that *I* came across, shows that these children are thriving just as well, if not, better, than children of heterosexual couples.

And if you compare children of same-sex couples to children that live in orphanages, then of course the former group is doing significantly better!

Look at reality and evidence, not at outdated illogical nonsense if you want to form a fair opinion of these important issues.

With reference to a "moral stand against such disgusting acts as homosexuality." .. diver dan, Wednesday, 11 August 2010 3:19:30 PM

Homosexuality is not a choice: it is hard-wired; it is God-given. To deny that is immoral.

<" ...you appear to me to be proud of your disease “homosexuality”. Unfortunately that pride (or is it insecurity) is a side effect of the illness; (for it was once treated as an illness did you know)?">

Aw gee, I wonder if gay folk noticed.

A lot of human ways of being that have been non-conformist to the moralistic middle stream have been labeled "illness". It's a means of suppression.

For example, Governments in Russia and China are notorious for confining political dissidents for 'psychiatric illness'; the idea being that nobody of sound mind would challenge prevailing authority.

http://pb.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/26/12/443

Slaves wanting their freedom were labeled mentally ill, with a disease called Drapetomania.

the malady was a consequence of masters who "made themselves too familiar with [slaves], treating them as equals."[6]

"If any one or more of them, at any time, are inclined to raise their heads to a level with their master or overseer, humanity and their own good requires that they should be punished until they fall into that submissive state which was intended for them to occupy. They have only to be kept in that state, and treated like children to prevent and cure them from running away." [7]

In Diseases and Pecularities of the Negro Race, Cartwright writes that the Bible calls for a slave to be submissive to his master, and by doing so, the slave will have no desire to run away..."

Whipping was the prescribed 'cure'.

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

Women deemed deviant were incarcerated or sent to reform schools for sexual nonconformity, ie: having sex outside of marriage:

http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=MjjLJJtlrzpS2qhlLhpJJbV911ySy9Nmp3VwzVZn76z4QS1ml3d6!190341322!1097832486?docId=96388698

http://www.windsorstar.com/health/conformity+creativity+quirkiness+There+pill+that/2971032/story.html?cid=megadrop_story

Don't prattle on about that psychiatric illness/abnormality rubbish.

Think of how much therapy and coercion, and for how long, it would take to make you enjoy and seek homosexual sexual encounters... because that's what you're demanding of people who are repelled by the idea of heterosexual sex.

Homosexuality IS normal for people who are gay.

Houellebecq,

>>I'd much rather the governmnet had let gay people marry, and leave all the heterosexual de-facto couples the option of remaining unmarried under the law.<<
I fully agree with you on this.

It should neither be of the government's, nor anybody else's business what kind of choices people make within their relationship.
Both heterosexual and homosexual couples should have both de-facto and marriage options available to them, otherwise it leads to unnecessary interfere with couple's freedom of choice.

Mc Real has got it right: One's sexual orientation is not something that one can choose, but is biologically determined.
And even if it was... so what? We all make choices that others might or might not agree with.

Stern,
>>"Any “right of parenthood” should be limited to the rights of the “natural” and “normal”<<
I don't really see why this should be so.
Even if people are attracted to the same sex, this doesn't have to take away their natural, and normal, desire to create a family and care for children, right?

It's hard to define 'normal' and 'natural' applied to this issue.
An estimated 5-10% of the population -of every population including in the animal kingdom- is homosexual. Isn't it natural and normal that a minority of any population is homosexual?
I would think it is a phenomena of nature, and not a good reason to justify discrimination against same-sex couples.

Doug,
I love your contributions, thank you.