Russell, I did not suggest that registration makes a union more legitimate. A de facto marriage is legitimate.

I said that to some people the symbolism of publicly registering their marriage can be very important.

People are not necessarily enslaved by authoritarianism if they choose to register their marriages. There are practical reasons for registering, such as wanting to make a public record of their union, just as births and deaths are recorded. Or do you think we shouldn't be doing that either?

Where do you start? By using your imagination. Some people want to make a public, recorded commitment to each other by registering their marriage. Just because you don't understand this desire doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or is invalid.

People who don't want to do this don't have to.

I don't know what "special treatment" you mean.

CORNFLOWER:
1. I do not see marriage as "deeply flawed" and I never said that I do.
2. I did not say that marriage discriminates against women.
3. I did not say that the Marriage Act "ought to be trashed." Quite the opposite.
4. The Marriage Act should be inclusive of same sex couples, is what I said.
5.I have no political position on polygamy. Personally, I don't think I would like it.
6. Gays do not HAVE to register their marriages if the Act is changed to include them, and neither do heterosexuals. It is entirely voluntary. So there won't be hordes of collaterally damaged same sex couples if the Marriage Act is changed to include them.

"There are practical reasons for registering, such as wanting to make a public record of their union..."

What sort of practical reason is that? What difference does it make in practice?

Even if that is true, why don't gays just set up a public record of relationships, and then every time a couple want to make a public record of their relationship, they can register on it?

Because that's not the reason gays are urging for the definition of marriage to be changed to enable registration of homosexual relationships under the Marriage Act, is it, Briar Rose?

By the way, don't think it has gone unnoticed that you are wrong about the legislative status or marriage. Ignoring the truth doesn't actually make your argument stronger.

If the argument is about "discrimination", the same Act discriminates against every other form of sexuality. At common law, people could be married as young as nine. So the Act "discriminates" against such relationships too. It is no answer to say that such are abusive. The reason homosexuality was criminalised for so many centuries is because it was considered abusive too. Similarly the reason polygamy is now criminalised is because of the Christian heritage of prejudice against other forms of sexuality.

You are only begging the question why governments should be in the business of registering sexual relationships. And you are blowing hot and cold on the same point.

Why should homosexuality accede to an exclusive privileged status that gays themselves are ready to deny to others forms of sexuality?

How is your position vis-a-vis other forms of sexuality any different to that of the church vis-a-vis homosexuality?

Apart from the desire for a public record, what are the other reasons why homosexuals might want to be able to register relationships under the Marriage Act?

Jefferson –
Most of your points I’ve addressed in earlier posts.
In addition:
1. Much family is history is traced through public records of marriages, births and deaths.
2. Sex with children is a crime.
3. Homosexuality is not.
4. The legislative status of marriage: registered marriages acquire a legal standing that requires a legal process of divorce to end them. It’s illegal to have more than one registered marriage at a time. De facto marriages do not require divorce to end them. It is not illegal to conduct more than one at a time. (This could be the solution for polygamists).
5. I am consistent in my position on government registration of “sexual relationships.” Marriage is only one expression of sexual relations. Marriage is not solely about sexual relations. Legislation on marriage, if it is to exist, should be non discriminatory.

Many posts on this topic have been little more than a torrent of angry demands that same sex couples justify their desire to register their marriages. Perhaps it is time for someone to put forward a cogent and coherent argument to substantiate the extraordinary opposition to this understandable wish for and right to equality.

Maybe it would also be a good idea to consider just exactly how same sex marriage would in any way disturb your lifestyle, and why the possibility of it arouses so much irrational emotion in opponents.

In answer to your last question, why shouldn’t homosexuals register their marriages? I’ve given plenty of reasons why they should be able to. Over to you to tell us why they shouldn’t.

Same sex marriage will probably improve public health. Sexually transmitted disease is spread by sexual promiscuity. Marriage whether homosexual or heterosexual encourages exclusive sexual relations. I support same sex marriage for its potential in cutting down disease as well as other aspects.

McReally!

They are not all Hindus in India. I particularly know this as I did spend 6 mths there. Yes, I guess if they were Christian, there would have been less chance of them dying in the gutter alone. The Sisters of Charity also dressed like Indians, blended with their own habit. Proselytising, well that's a bit of an overstatement, isn't it? That's all she knew - her own faith, and she was there for the dying out of LOVE when there was nobody else. Love - believe it, or not. You know - you need to chuck all your cold cynism out and believe there are actually some special people in this world who live and work to serve in a positive way. I don't think it would have been too practical to fit in Hinduism - it was her gig afterall. And maybe they might have less chance of being reincarnated as frog, who knows. Right or wrong, she gave comfort. Actually, I have no idea what death rites she performed but I'm pretty sure she didn't use duress.
.

“Most of your points I’ve addressed in earlier posts.”
No you haven’t. You haven’t given any valid reasons. You rely on non-facts about marriage. You urge non-existent practical reasons. You fail to address the central issues: a. why government should be registering private sexual relations in the first place, and b. how registering gay “marriages” would avoid discrimination against other forms of sexuality.

“Much family is history is traced through public records of marriages, births and deaths.”

So what? What’s stopping gays from making public records of their relationships?

“Sex with children is a crime.
Homosexuality is not.”

So what? You are trying to argue from what is, to what should be. If that were valid, it would end the question to point out the fact that governmental registration of gay “marriages” *is* not possible. It’s nonsense.

If a majority voted for homosexuality to be illegal, would that settle the question for you?

“The legislative status of marriage: registered marriages acquire a legal standing that requires a legal process of divorce to end them. It’s illegal to have more than one registered marriage at a time. De facto marriages do not require divorce to end them. It is not illegal to conduct more than one at a time.”

So what?

“why shouldn’t homosexuals register their marriages? I’ve given plenty of reasons why they should be able to.”

(We’re still waiting for a valid one.)

“Over to you to tell us why they shouldn’t.”

You have got the onus of proof back-the-front.

“Legislation on marriage, if it is to exist, should be non discriminatory.”

1. Why should it exist?
2. Why should homosexuality accede to an exclusive privileged status that gays themselves are ready to deny to others forms of sexuality?
3. How is your position vis-a-vis other forms of sexuality any different to that of the church vis-a-vis homosexuality?