Have you heard what happened in Spain? The so called non-discriminating(?) new legislation that came in with the arrival of the new (Socialist) govt after the Madrid bombings occurred - ironically discriminates against mum and dad. For the sake of this new same sex marriage legislation, now birth certificates cannot state "Mother" and "Father" but instead "Progenitor 1" and "Progenitor 2". Does that mean children can no longer say Ma Ma or Papa anymore? Que bizarro!

The good Dr. Wilson

Below, the first of three tenants remaining from the magna carter, the foundation of the Westminster political system , the basis of the Australian way,

1. The freedom of the church of England
FIRST, We have granted to GOD, and by this our present Charter have confirmed, for us and our heirs for ever, that the church of England shall be free, and shall have all her whole rights and liberties inviolable(that must not or cannot be transgressed, dishonoured, or broken; to be kept sacred). We have granted also, and given to all the freemen of our realm, for us and our Heirs for ever, these liberties underwritten, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, for us and our Heirs forever.

As peeving as it must be to unbelievers out there, the FACT cannot be denied, Australian society is “foundationed” on Christianity. Repeat: “that must not or cannot be transgressed, dishonoured, or broken; to be kept sacred”. The prime tenant of the Westminister system, lives because of Christainity and features Christianity first and foremost.

So, good doctor Wilson, lets contain the debate on homoseexuality to morals, based on Christian ethics, as is the law relating to marriage now. No radical changes thank you.

This really and truly is a poor article. I understand (because I respect others) that there are serious arguments why a democratic state should allow same-sex marriage, but this article missed the mark by a long shot.

From the opening paragraph that assumes that Christians think that marriage started with Jesus Christ (I've never met anyone who thought this), through the tired old argument that it is disrespectful for Christians to express their opinion about same-sex marriage (seemingly just because they disagree with the views of the writer), on to the illogical idea that because Churches have disgustingly failed to live up to their principles in protecting children they should therefore give up their principles about marriage, and finishing with the final hypocrisy of giving her own definition of marriage in the same breath as castigating Christians for daring to offer their definition, this article is all rhetorical self righteousness and no substance at all.

Diver Dan,

You quote the Magna Carta as a basis for using Christian 'ethics' and 'morals' to determine the basis for debate and law.

The Magna Carta, a document issued in 1215 when Christian 'ethics' and 'morals' supported slavery, the crusades, burning people at the stake, torture etc...

I get the feeling that it may have passed out of relevence in the 21st century. What some king decreed 800 years ago on the other side of the world really has very little effect on my own personal 'ethics' and 'morals' today.

Constance, you make a good argument against poor word choice, but no argument against same sex marriage reform.

No, I hadn't heard that, Constance.

>>For the sake of this new same sex marriage legislation, now birth certificates cannot state "Mother" and "Father" but instead "Progenitor 1" and "Progenitor 2"<<

That is really, really dumb.

As far as same-sex couples are concerned, a maximum of one of them can possibly be a "progenitor", since the word has an identical usage in Spanish as in English:

Eng: progenitor - a direct ancestor

Esp: progenitor - ascendiente en línea directa

If the birth certificate only shows the names of the same-sex carers, what document is used to identify the actual progenitors?

If there is none, what has disappeared is any chance the child might have had to discover their "birth parents".

As far as our own laws are concerned, I'm reasonably certain that the child has some rights in the matter, so any legislation that tried to take this information out of the equation would have a very hard time indeed.

And quite rightly so.

Not much forgiveness or understanding shone through in this article given forgiveness is one of the author's fields of interest. Mother Theresa was highly regarded in her day for living a life not too many of us would pursue. And in spite of all the good she did, she is pilloried for baptizing dying Hindus in hospice care.
If you believe in God or Gods you would know that a compassionate God, in this case a Hindu God, knows the heart of the believer, and Mother Theresa's action would be for naught. So no spiritual harm was done.

Does the author truly believe those Christians who oppose Green policy should be seen and not heard, along with their counterparts amongst Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Mormons and non religious.

This issue has to be discussed openly and broadly for how else will anyone know what same sex people really want. Until we actually know, no one can form an educated opinion.

So what do same sex couples want?
1. Support for same sex marriage that includes all the blessings of a traditional religious ceremony (whether it be Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Mormon etc)
2. Support for same sex ceremony that excludes some or all religious ceremony ie the blessing that the couples successfully procreate (and this is common to all religious ceremonies)
3. Support for same sex couples to have a secular ceremony in a state run registry office.
4. Support for a same sex ceremony/relationship that qualifies them for the benefits male/female marriage receives ie spouse leave, adoption, IVF etc
5. All of the above
6. None of the above

Let's discuss this openly and frankly.