Runner is concerned that if Gays and lesbians are given the right to marriage, they will practice sodomy and 'spread disease.

Apart from the fact that most lesbians do not practice sodomy, but some heterosexual couples do, there is also the fact that heterosexual sex (married or not) has it's own problems with sexually transmitted diseases.

Should we thus outlaw ALL marriages in the interests of public health Runner?

I think you need to come up with a better argument than that of homosexual couples 'spreading diseases'.

Mickey K,

If you think you have scored a rhetorical point by pretending that the drafters and signatories of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights meant anything other than heterosexual marriage then fine, that is completely up to you but you are only fooling yourself. Proof of that if any was required is the objection of gays to it.

"The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized" was and is taken by signatories to be the marriage of one man and one woman that they are familiar with and is traditional.

Likewise, you might fool yourself into believing that the family referred to in the Covenant means every possible combination and permutation of sexual preference and number of participants, but that is not what the drafters intended. They have access to dictionaries.

It is foolish of gay activists to quote the UN Conventions and not expect that the general public will first, rely on their own good sense and secondly, Google to read the Conventions themselves.

Returning to the de facto provisions in Australia, there is no doubt whatsoever of gross conflict with the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It is an unconscionable abuse of its power that the State has taken such powers for itself and has trampled over the freedom and rights of its citizens.

Many thanks for all these comments, particularly the critical ones: this issue needs to be debated, not closed off.

Comments on Article 26 of the ICCPR: in its 2003 decision in Young v Australia the Human Rights Committee interpreted Art 26 to include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and decided that therefore Australia had violated Art 26 by denying a pension to Mr Young, who was the surviving same sex spouse of a veteran. The Covenant does not have to be changed: the Committee's interpretation is authoritative.

Cornflower -

You call upon the common sense of the general public to interpret the Articles to refer to heterosexual marriages only.

That same general public good sense was represented in a Galaxy poll in which 60% of good, sensible Australians wanted same sex marriage to be legal in this country, and wanted the Marriage Act amendment of 2004, (yes, that's 2004, a very recent amendment, prior to that the Marriage Act did not state it was a union between men and women only) these 60% good, sensible Australians wanted the Marriage Act to be amended to remove the heterosexual definition of marriage.

maybe you are a little out of touch with the mainstream.

runner-
your allegations of homosexuals causing disease through the practice of sodomy are plain silly, and very last century.

Apart from anything else, gays and lesbians who want to marry are intending to be monogamous, just like heterosexuals who choose marriage. Not everybody will manage this, regardless of their sexuality, but monogamy is part of the marriage commitment.

Do you imagine that there aren't any gay and lesbian teachers in private schools? And if so, why would you imagine that?

This article is interesting, because it is not an argument FOR gay marriage. Rather, it reads more like a call to the Labor party to change their policy.

I'd like to encourage people from OLO to provide the best possible arguments in support of legalising gay marriage and thus abandoning the traditional concept of marriage.

The arguments I've seen are as follows:

1. I (gays and lesbians) should be able to marry whoever I want/I should have the same rights as straight people. The marriage act is too exclusive.

2. Traditional marriage is discriminatory. We should remove discrimination and allow gay marriage.

3. We need equality. Gay marriage will provide equality.

I have some observations regarding these arguments, but firstly I'd like to hear whether there are any other views out there. Almost every piece of pro gay marriage propaganda or opinion seems to hold to close variations of the above, but if I've missed any pro gay marriage arguments, please post them.