Opposing marriage for gays won't stop homosexual sexual abuse or bullying.
And what is wrong with trying to create a 'happy family' experience after a traumatic childhood or early adult hood? It is a motivation for many heterosexuals to marry.
As for the fact that marriages break down, men and women have been labouring under the devaluing of the status of heterosexual marriage due to high divorce rates and the cyncial views of 'the herd' as well.
Eventually, you realise that statistics and 'group think' can only be a minor influence in your life, as the individual is not just a mindless representative of the group.
Getting married provided a kind of stability and emotional support that NO other way of living has done for me, why would I wish to deprive others of the institution?
Are we concerned about children's rights when we talk about gay marriage? Perhaps, in the context of gay rights, children should be considered seperately to marriage?

Firstly, Most of the people who oppose gay marriage do not actually consider themselves religious EG attend weekly church serivces.

Secondly, As a gay person I find that the gays and lesbians who oppose gay marriage are often self-hating gays EG they cannot accept who they are.

Lastly, Unless gay marriage is made legal then we gays and lesbians will face discrimination.

"As a gay person I find that the gays and lesbians who oppose gay marriage are often self-hating gays."

Self-hating, eh! Patrick White once said that his homosexuality disgusted him.

This self-hating dimension suggests that the gay and lesbian push for societal legitimacy, marriage and having children is rather hollow and based upon an unsound foundation.

http://www.dangerouscreation.com

@Jason84
If homosexual marriage is legalised you'll face more discrimination and outright hatred, not less, Australia is becoming more "conservative",not more permissive.
There would have to be even more draconian "Hate" laws passed to sustain your little experiment, fundamentalists of all kinds would be falling over themselves to be martyred, it would be a disaster for homosexuals.
"Diversity" and "tolerance" already require a Police State to prop them up, what will happen to celebrants or officials who refuse to facilitate such unions?
And stop using the word "Gay' you're homosexual, not Happy, seems like someone can't accept what they are.

Last time I checked, heterosexuals were allowed to get married AND divorced without attracting ill-natured and narrow-minded abuse. It seems only reasonable that homosexuals should be shown the same courtesy.

Floatinglili you said, “Opposing marriage for gays won't stop homosexual sexual abuse or bullying.” But who said it would?

The larger point is that it is a distraction from bigger issues facing gay men.

You also said: “Perhaps, in the context of gay rights, children should be considered seperately to marriage?” I only wish activists thought of that.

Jason84 you said that: “As a gay person I find that the gays and lesbians who oppose gay marriage are often self-hating gays EG they cannot accept who they are.” I’ve observed the opposite. Indeed, most conservative-minded gays are focused on larger issues, like the stoning of gays in Muslim nations, for example.

I also find it odd how leftwing gays want to act like married heterosexual couples, and try to adopt rather traditional ceremonies. But aren’t they just mimicking? Perhaps they’re trying to prove themselves.

Also, lesbian feminists, have wasted decades denouncing marriage, and now they want it? Please. How many times can they change their minds?

"And is the "gay marriage" movement another activist distraction?"

Aside from that and superficial, keyboard green militancy, what have the Australian Greens got to offer?

John J you said: “Last time I checked, heterosexuals were allowed to get married AND divorced without attracting ill-natured and narrow-minded abuse. It seems only reasonable that homosexuals should be shown the same courtesy.”

Oh Please. For decades, many leftwing lesbian feminists showed nothing but pure contempt for marriage. Send them your notes on courtesy.

@ Jay Of Melbourne

Your opinion changes nothing.

What's all the fuss about?

Not everyone wants to get married.

Not everyone adheres to the same beliefs
or wants the same outcomes.
There are many alternative lifestyles in our
society today. Our society is individualistic
and highly open to change and experimentation,
and it is likely that people will explore a wide
variety of choices.

I would have thought that in today's society
all possible options should be open and equally
acceptable for people (providing they don't hurt
anyone) and that a person's individual human
qualities, rather than their biological sex, or
sexual orientation, would be a primary measure of that
person's worth and achievement.

Whether a person chooses to marry or not should in
this day and age be left up to individual choice,
regardless of their sexual orientation.

@ History Buff

Your obviously not a "history buff" or you would know what the effect that the ban on interracial marriage had on the people who were affected.

"Your opinion changes nothing.” Great comeback Jason. I used that as a teenager for a few years, but it grew old. Later, I discovered that history matters.

@jason84
What ban on interracial marriage?
Oh were these the laws against miscgenation in the U.S.A which the northern states did NOT repeal after the civil war?
Just like they DIDN'T allow escaped slaves to stay in their jurisdiction for more than 30 days, they moved them on to Canada.
You've been raised on lies my friend and you are a typical "Gay" thug, how dare you link non acceptance of your silly, uninformed views and bogus "Rights" to "Racism".
This proves my point, the harder you push, the angrier and more oppressive you become the bigger the potential backlash.
Most enlightened Australians, myself included view homosexuals as harmless eccentrics and have a live and let live attitude toward eccentricity and "bohemian" lifestyles, what we don't like is bullying, hectoring Trotskyites and other Left Wing Hate Groups waving their fists and threatening people.
Jason Akermanis made an observation about homosexuals then had people coming to his house in the middle of the night while he, his wife and kids slept and vandalising his property.
Stephanie Rice gets hauled before a mini Nuremberg Tribunal for public humiliation and is bullied to tears by thugs like you.
Homosexual activists and your generation of "Gays" generally are obnoxious, intolerant and violent and yet you wonder why the rest of us object to your silly campaign for your non existent "Right" to marry.

@ Jay Of Melbourne

Can't you read?, Your opinion means nothing to me.

Jay Of Melbourne:

Yep; that sums it up! BUT

How do we pick a winner for the big “one” this weekend at the MCG?

@ Diver Dan.
I Ching?
Divination of Chicken gizzards?
Spin the bottle?
I prefer the "ask the old drunk guy on the tram" method.
The Greek bloke who sells me my morning coffee is backing the Saints,If anyone would know it'd be him, I mean, he owns a shop!he must know something about football.
Just like "Gays", by virtue of being harmless eccentrics at the margins of society automatically know what's best for everyone on the planet and that "rights" should be created for a tiny minority where none exist for the majority.
See I don't have or even need the "right" to be married to my wife, we are together for the purpose of procreation, that's what marriage is really for as understood by 99.9% of humans, babies, not "rights" or "equality" or "love".

What is most interesting in this debate is that it is a debate at all - why do so many people object, and sometimes so viciously, to gay people having the right to marry?

Why is it an issue at all? If you aren't gay, why is it anything to do with you? If you are gay and don't like marriage for whatever reason, then don't do it. Nobody's going to make you.

Why are so many people so ready to stick their noses into other people's sexual and emotional lives, and tell them what they can and can't do in those lives?

All you anti gay marriage people, get a life. This issue should not be occupying your valuable time. Haven't you got things that really affect your lives to worry about?

What difference does it make to you if the Marriage Act is amended to include some gay and lesbian couples who'd like to make that commitment?

Really. What a bunch of control freaks you all are.

@Briar Rose.
Everyone says there's a problem with tolerance of homosexuals and that the Final Solution to this problem will be for White countries and only White countries to re define the terms of the fundamental unit of society, the Family to suit homosexual tastes.
Re defining the fundamentals of a society is everyone's business but if I object to this attempt at changing the most essential building block of human society I'm branded a Naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.
Nobody is trying to tell the Japanese to change the basic unit of their society, the family.
Nobody is trying to tell the Nigerians to change the basic building block of their society, the family.
Only White people are expected to accept a re definition of the most basic building block of the White Race, the family

So Briar Rose tell us,you've identified a topic which White people and only White people should not be talking about even though we're the only ones being asked to accept the re definition of our most fundamental societal unit,the family.
What in your view are we allowed to discuss?

Yeah, right. There are some straight people who want nothing to do with marriage, so the right to marry should be denied to heterosexuals too. Eh?

These people arguing against gay marriage are a bit like mad old Canute, beating back the waves. I particularly love how the “but-the-gays-don’t-want-it” argument against gay marriage doggedly ignores the facts.

First, if only gay activists want marriage, rather than your average poof-on-the-street, how come hundreds of gay couples are travelling overseas to get married? http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/international.htm (Exact figures are not yet known, but overseas-married same-sex couples will be allowed to indicate that they are officially married on next year’s census http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/news/20090507.htm )

It’s also interesting that many couples are entering into British civil unions at local consular missions, http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/gay-couple-to-marry-at-the-british-consulate/2006/06/12/1149964469537.html indicating that there’s a big demand for the almost-marriage recognition that Britain offers.

Second, in NSW at least, until 2007 the activists in the NSW Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby were actively resisting marriage until a state-wide consultation showed them that the people they represent want nothing less than full equality: http://glrl.org.au/images/stories/all_love_is_equal_isnt_it.pdf

Third, more recent research has confirmed the findings that the majority of same-sex-attracted people (i.e. not just the activists) want access to marriage http://www.notsoprivatelives.com/.

The story that Terpstra is trying to spin is simply not true. A small majority of same-sex couples wish to marry, and an overwhelming majority believe that we should have the right to choose marriage. Just like checking the names of the writers he quotes (it’s John Heard, not James), Terpstra should check his facts before airing his ill-informed prejudices.

For those who are interested, two recent and relevant articles:

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/lifematters/portia-degeneres-and-the-fight-for-samesex-marriage-20100927-15t7u.html

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/states-could-legalise-samesex-marriage-20100927-15u0k.htm

Jay of Melbourne : Your post is a load of hysterical twaddle - and demonstrates exactly what I was talking about.

White supremacy, Nazis, "everyone says," AND the Final Solution -

"we're the only ones being asked to redefine the most fundamental societal unit" -

As Nietzsche observed, morality is often nothing more than the expression of personal emotions: "I hate it, therefore it is wrong/illegal/immoral."

Apart from all that, "the most fundamental societal unit" is being redefined, and has already been redefined by heterosexuals for decades.

What is your problem with homosexuals? That's the most important question facing you.

Jay Of Melbourne:

Ah well, at the risk of waggling fingers of accusation from posters, and cries of “troll”, (Definition = In Internet slang, a “troll” is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum): I venture an intrusion here. Since we are to discuss a topic on sexual preferences, I feel it inappropriate to “spin the bottle”, as one suggestion for picking the winner. I prefer your Greek connection: And to split the infinitive, “I boldly go where many men have gone before”, and lay twenty prayers on “Saints” for a win.

On parting though, and to give this post some credibility, the article backs-up my opinion from previous posts on this subject suggesting that Gay Marriage is not universally accepted amongst Gays themselves.

Would it be interesting or not to survey Gays in the community for their preference, yes or no, to Gay Marriage? One cannot help but notice the high incidence of quoting any survey, scientific or not, (as implied in this article) supporting the “yes” preference by that minority Gay group in our community (also implied in this article) the Gay activists.

60 Per Cent of Australians Support Gay Marriage.

The nationwide survey of 1100 respondents carried out by Galaxy Research found females (68 per cent) were more likely to support gay marriage than males (53 per cent), while Australians aged 16 to 24 (74 per cent) were more likely to agree than those aged 25 to 34 (71 per cent), 35-49 (68 per cent) or 50 and over (45 per cent).

Greens voters (82 per cent) were more likely to agree than those who vote for the ALP (64 per cent) and the Coalition (50 per cent).

Attitudes also split according to income levels. While 66 per cent of white-collar workers backed the change, that figure fell to 55 per cent for blue-collar workers.

Here is a web link to the poll results: http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/Galaxy200906.pdf

Jason84 you said: “Your [sic] obviously not a ‘history buff'; or you would know what the effect that the ban on interracial marriage had on the people who were affected.”

Please. Are you seriously comparing skin colour to sexuality?

Should the rich white-majority gay establishment compare themselves to victims of racism? And, by the way, most non-white people across the world oppose “gay marriage.

Briar Rose you stated: “All you anti gay marriage people, get a life. This issue should not be occupying your valuable time. Haven't you got things that really affect your lives to worry about?”

Briar some advice: Send your sermons to Penny Wong and Julia Gillard, if that’s how you feel. As for other politically incorrect gays and heterosexuals, we reserve the right to challenge the purposeful establishment of fatherless families, among other things.

In fact, it sounds as if you’re projecting your adults-only libertarian views on society.People who don’t share your opinions aren’t anti-gay, but you appear to use names in order to shut them up, a sign that you are the real controlling personality on this site.

@ diver dan

A national survey conducted by researchers at The University of Queensland has found that the majority of same-sex attracted Australians reported marriage to be their personal preference for relationship recognition, dispelling the myth that most same-sex couples do not wish to marry or are content with de facto status.

Not So Private Lives (www.notsoprivatelives.com) is the first national survey to include an investigation of same-sex attracted Australians' preferences for various forms of relationship recognition since the introduction of de facto status for same-sex couples at a federal level.

The survey, which examined many aspects of sexual-minority life, attracted 2,232 participants from across all states and territories and from both urban and rural areas. Participants were aged 18 – 82 years of age and two thirds reported to be in some form of same-sex relationship.

Findings from the relationship recognition part of the survey show that the majority (54.1%) of same-sex attracted participants selected marriage as their personal choice and close to 80% felt marriage should be an option for same-sex couples in Australia

@ History Buff

In the USA when african-american Rosa Parks complained of having to give up her seat to make room for a white passenger on a public bus, the majority white population suggested she should be thankful of being able to ride on the bus.

When we gays complain about the ban on same-sex marriage, the heterosexual majority suggests that we should be thankful that Australia does not hold the same views (on homosexuality) of the likes of Iran where they regulary hang gays.

@ Briar Rose & Jason84.
All things being equal your ideas might work, but when you're talking about White people all things are not equal.
"Gays" are simply living in the moment, as History Buff notes.
What has happened in the past when people have created second tier institutions in a White society?
Indentured servitude/Convict transportation is one example.
Child labour and the "Poor Laws", the Irish Famines, Aboriginal Genocide.
You can see where I'm going with this.
Certain of what you term "social constructs" are actually immutable, Race is one, marriage between a man and woman for the purpose of procreation is another, these are basic building blocks of society.
"Gay" marriage will always be seen as second best, second tier so to speak, it's progeny will be viewed as lesser children and discriminated against.
We know the fate of out groups from our history.
We're approaching another period of chaos and change for White people, there is a very real possibility the systems which protect you may be compromised or break down altogether.
The fate of those percieved as second class citizens when White society is in flux has historically been very unpleasant, out groups always bear the brunt of any widespread anguish among Whites.
Just realise that marking yourselves out as different causes resentment and that the social stability we enjoy now may be gone tomorrow.
40% of 22 million is around 8 million people who don't accept your ideology.
10% of 22 million is 2.2 million who may be LGBTI.
Things have gone sour before they may go sour again, I'm not posting this in a threatening way just calling how I see it in the light of current developments and trends.
As I said, I regard Homosexuals as harmless eccentrics and bear them no ill will, other people are not so tolerant and are very quick to find scapegoats in desperate times.

Foxy, you said: “What's all the fuss about?”

Perhaps you aren’t aware that out jails are stacked with fatherless boys. Do you really think that purposefully creating fatherless families is good for children? And if you don’t believe the sociology and crime statistics, think about visiting a jail.

Robbing boys of dads is worth making a “fuss” about Foxy

“60 Per Cent of Australians Support Gay Marriage”? That’s a fake Jason84 poll, and even the Labor Party knows it. Galaxy is a joke.

Come to think of it, the election (a real poll) shows that Australia is turning to the right, not the left. But in any case, send your strange links to Julia Gillard. She’s our PM.

Jay Of Melbourne

What you say then JOM, is Gays may one day configure themselves into a tribal group, as do Gypsies now for example, in order to survive a possible pogrom prompted by a future reformation of society, with the inevitable backlash against the current high profiling and unnaturally open assimilation of all aspects of their perceived injustices, by means of political agitation, forced on a currently passive western society, more and more devoid and weakened itself by the loss of its traditional anchor of moral code and direction, the light of Christian ethics, replaced by a culture of greed and Godlessness, and subjected to the strengthening cult of Atheism. Mmmmm.

Jay Of Melbourne

I was not going to genuinely respond to your posts but I could not hold back my gratitude towards you. You see want to thank you for posting your original message to me stating:

"If homosexual marriage is legalised you'll face more discrimination and outright hatred, not less"

When you post messages like that on public forums its actually helping us gays and lesbians gain federal anti-discrimination laws. So I please urge you to continue posting messages threatening discrimination as it helps our cause, I am forever grateful - keep up the great work for us.

You're welcome Jason84,
That's a point from another post, "diversity" needs a Police State to enforce "tolerance".
There's another aspect to your push for "equal love".
At this point in time you're relying on Baby Boomers for legitimacy and support, bad move, they're not reliable allies and they'll turn their back on you or sell you out.
The boomers are a failed, dysfunctional generation, every effort at "change" that's come from them has failed, every single one.
The WW2 generation set out to change Australia and largely succeeded (for better or worse) but they turned their backs on their children, gave them no guidance and little moral support, said "a job well done' and washed their hands of the whole thing.
Notice the way that the "youth" are now waking up and starting to say to the Boomers "Hey you guys saw the country and the world going to hell and didn't do a damn thing about it, EPIC FAIL!".
Then, as noted above the Boomers are becoming more reactionary, more conservative and are effectively now a blocking force in our society.
This is the world you live in now, think about what might be coming up when the boomers are really challenged by the "youth".

@ Diver Dan,
Pretty much, San Francisco is a good example of out group consolidation at work as are the burgeoning Islamic communities (I don't use the word enclave, ask me why if you like) in say, Bradford or Marseilles.

History Buff - I did not write "anti gay", I wrote "anti gay marriage." There is an important difference.

There have been "fatherless families" for decades, and most of them have nothing at all to do with gays and lesbians, but are heterosexual.

If it's "fatherless families" you're concerned about,there's currently far more people who make that choice than gays and lesbians. For many people, it isn't a choice, but a necessity.

It isn't controlling to be inclusive - it is controlling to exclude.

Insisting that a "family" can only take the form you decide is controlling behaviour.

Jay Of Melbourne

As wafting coolness of gentle summer breeze refresh parched arid fields to attend hot days

By flickering candle light to bright morning light, toils tortured hand of honest yon scribe

To missal complete, blank page replete with refresh of the truth and the light to the lies.

Well Said..

@ Briar Rose.
Inclusion and assimilation kills diversity and creativity.
The "Gay' activists, who are Trotskyites almost to a person are not about diversity, they're about the total eradication of all particularism, restriction of freedom of expression and association and the creation of a society composed of absolutely identical beings.
Bohemians, including homosexuals were always regarded, somewhat wistfully by the "Squares" as free spirits, untamed, non conformist, Avant Garde even.
Imagine the grey, mirthless dystopia where Oscar Wilde and Quentin Crisp were stay at home dads passing around baby photos at parties and boring everyone stupid with their renovation plans.
I don't know many homosexuals anymore, not since I gave up taking drugs anyway, which was the main context in which I used to meet them.
The ones I do know are boisterous non conformists and eccentrics, they lead wild, anarchic lives, seemingly teetering on the brink of disaster at every turn, unaware or unconcerned by social mores.
Value eccentricity, tolerate the Bohemian and the Avant Garde, stay true to tradition but don't drain all the colour and life from the world by homogenising everything.

Dear Jay

Here you are complaining that giving homosexuals equal rights is homogenising everything, yet on other threads you are promoting all white nations.

Contradicting yourself. No doubt you'll devise some doublespeak to explain away this latest bit of hypocrisy. At least you will provide a bit of entertainment tinged with sadness at your obvious bigotry towards those different from you.

Briar Rose, "Insisting that a 'family' can only take the form you decide is controlling behaviour."

Nonetheless that is what you are doing by applying the universal mould of church and State defined and regulated marriage to gays.

This is a logical controlling follow-on from the precedent of dumping the de facto laws onto gays, which was entirely unsuitable in application and effect for the choices and lifestyles of the greatest majority of gays and done with consultation.

As usual the middle class academics and bureaucrats who believe they know what is best for others are at it again with the demand for gay marriage. Honestly, does anyone really believe the Greens, the sponsors of gay marriage, have ever consulted with anyone? This is their brave new world and it has done the opposite of what most gays would favour in legitimising the State's interest and interference in the private lives and bedrooms of gays.

Lawyers are in favour of more regulation of gay relationships because of the wads of money they get from fomenting strife in break-ups. What was once easily understandable and cost-free now automatically involves the State, is likely to cost a small fortune in legal fees and results in life-long animosity.

The de facto definitions (government departments differ) are so murky and general as to cause long and expensive debates between lawyers and even between the government's own bureaucrats who apply them in their decisions affecting citizen's lives.

@ History Buff

Public opinion polls:

Back in June 2007, the results of a Galaxy poll commissioned by advocacy group GetUp! were released. The poll measured opinions of 1100 Australians aged 16 and over.

- 71% of respondents agreed that same-sex partners should have the same legal rights as de facto heterosexual couples.
- 57% of respondents supported same-sex marriage. The poll suggests a 20-point jump in support since 2004, when Newspoll found 38 per cent in favour and 44 per cent against.

In May 2008, a survey of 15,000 women aged 20 and above by the Australian Women's Weekly found that more than 70% said same-sex couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples. This is consistent with the nationwide Galaxy poll results from June 2007. Weblink to that news article: http://www.news.com.au/women-think-gay-rights-ok-migrants-not/story-e6frfkp9-1111116467897

Now two years later in June 2009, a Galaxy poll conducted for Australian Marriage Equality measured the opinions of 1100 Australians aged 16 or older. The poll found that 60% of Australians would support same-sex marriage, with 36% opposed and 4% undecided. It also found that 58% of Australians would support the recognition of same-sex marriages formed in other countries in Australian Law.[95] The breakdown of the poll suggested that support was strongest amongst women (68%), Labor voters (64%), Greens voters (82%), and those aged 16–24 (74%). It also suggested that support was strongest in New South Wales and weakest in Queensland and South Australia, though a majority in all states were in support

Galaxy opinion polling is not associated with any gay rights organisations and is totally independent.

@ Severin.
Explain the contradiction in my thinking, if you will, I'm against assimilation on both counts.
I talk about all White Nations existing alongside and in peace with all black Nations, all Asian Nations etc.
There are around 50 all Black countries governed by Black people for Black people.
There are around the same number of all Asian countries, governed by and for the benefit of Asians.
There is not one all White country in the world governed by and for the benefit of White people.
White people are 9% of the world's population yet we have no home of our own, not one all White country.
Nigeria has a population of 150 million,with several thousand White residents.
Britain has 61 million people with around 500,000 Nigerians living there.
Nigeria is considerably richer in natural resources and has more arable land than Britain.
Why are Nigerians being allowed into Britain?
They have no reason to be there.
Why are Africans in Finland and Ireland?

Briar you said: “There have been ‘fatherless families’ for decades, and most of them have nothing at all to do with gays and lesbians, but are heterosexual.” Ah, so only some break up families?

Of course, radical lesbian feminists were condemning and undermining the traditional family unit for decades, but were where you then Briar?

It appears that only lesbians can make judgments to destroy the traditional family, but when conservatives make judgments to protect innocent children, they become the bad guys. And Briar, why purposefully create more fatherless families? It seems like some people really have it in for men and fathers, in particular

Jason84 – your obsession with the leftwing Galaxy poll is laughable. But present your results to Labor if you think your side has hoodwinked the public (for now).

Recently, there was a much bigger poll, called the election, where the more conservative Liberal Party took more seats from a first term government in living memory. So I guess Galaxy was wrong.

My poll listened to millions. Your “poll” took in the views of a few hundred people, “selected” at certain times in certain areas. Nice try

jason84, "Galaxy opinion polling is not associated with any gay rights organisations and is totally independent."

The poll you are talking about was sponsored by Get Up. Do you know where its funds come from, its membership, what its policies are and how it arrives at those policies? After all, you vouch for it as being "totally independent".

http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/02/04/getup-and-its-strange-but-well-heeled-bedfellows/

Further, have you had occasion to look at the survey design? As demonstrated during the last election, there are surveys and surveys and few people really put much stock in them unless done by the federal Bureau of Statistics.

@ cornflower.
I read link Jason84 provided, the first question is provocative and leads the answer on the second via the usual guilt trip used to manufacture consent.
"If comparable White/Multicultural countries are allowing "Gay" marriage then shouldn't we?"
Honestly, an activist stream which holds up Canada, the United States and South Africa as "tolerant" countries is laughable, in Canada if you are politically incorrect you are hauled before a tribunal and you go to jail, no one is ever acquitted of a "Human Rights" charge.
South Africa is committing genocide against the Boers, it's so bad that even the U.N has listed them as vulnerable and subject to persecution and attempts to wipe them out.
The U.S government is now the subject of a Human Rights complaint with the U.N for its Genocide of White Americans via uncontrolled immigration and totally outrageous rate of bias crimes against Whites.
This is what I mean, "Gay" activists, just like "diversity" activists wouldn't have the first inkling of what the words tolerance and diversity mean, their model of "tolerance" is Ukraine under the CHEKA in 1932.

Excellent point Jay of Melbourne – the few nations that adopted “gay marriage” are very anti-free speech and far from tolerant. Many of them censor “bad” opinions.

Jay Of Melbourne

Don't forget to blame us gays for Hurricane Katrina and the September 11th 2001 terror attacks like the late Reverend Jerry Falwell and Reverend John Haggee did.

Jay Of Melbourne & History Buff

Unless your the Governor-General Ms Quentin Bryce, then there is no way you can stop gay marriage from being legalised. The majority of the population support marriage equality, so a couple of people whinging and moaning on onlineopinion.com.au is not going to stop gay marriage eventually becoming legal. Thanks for the laughs, Nice try kids cya.

There seems to be some confusion about the term "inclusion." Some posters seem to think "inclusion" is the same as "compulsion."

HB and JoM:

Equality for those who want same sex marriage doesn't mean compelling same sex couples to marry.

The argument is about fairness, and equal choice for adult human beings. You just don't get that, do you?

Nobody is imposing the mould (sic) of church and state on gays and lesbians - we're just wanting gays and lesbians to have the same access to these "impositions" as straight people have, if they want to do that.

Inclusion isn't the same as assimilation either.

I know a lot of straight people who've ended their marriages over the years, and none of them were radical feminists

Briar says: “I know a lot of straight people who've ended their marriages over the years, and none of them were radical feminists.”

I’m not sure what she is talking about. Is she saying that two wrongs make a right? I do know that thanks to feminists, expressive divorces and abandoning children are much easier nowadays. But is that a good thing?

It is sad when couples split, but to purposefully engineer fatherless families without fathers is sickening. As Timothy J. Dailey reminds us: “The eminent Harvard sociologist, Pitirim Sorokin, analyzed cultures spanning several thousand years on several continents, and found that virtually no society has ceased to regulate sexuality within marriage as traditionally defined, and survived.

briar rose, "Some posters seem to think 'inclusion' is the same as 'compulsion.'"

So you are saying that gays were 'included' in the de facto provisions?

They had no choice, no option and it was something sorted in back rooms. The electorate was never consulted and nor were gays. The State and courts can now make rulings on their relationship status as de facto (common law marriage) or not and without regard for their choice or intent in those 'relationships'. This would have to be the most significant contract a person could ever enter into, yet unlike even the most simple of contracts, the 'simple' (sic) matter of their informed choice and consent is disregarded, or even overruled.

As has already been said a number of times, even the administering bureaucrats who are empowered to decide a person's relationship for them do not have a simple definition of a de facto relationship and rely on up to forty 'conditions' that could indicate the status of the relationship. A big change from when gays were fortunate enough not to have the State peering into their private affairs.

You have a strange idea of 'inclusion'. It is all rhetoric though isn't it and a word means what you want it to depending on the circumstances, like Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty in through the Looking Glass.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."

What gays have asked the bothering elite in academia and the bureaucracy to represent them anyhow?

@ Jason84.
There you go again asking permission for your views from the Boomers.
Mate they have no loyalty to you,the country, "Gays" or even their own principles if they become inconvenient.
Quentin Bryce is a socialist who works for a monarch...Huh?
Julia Gillard is a socialist who supports unreservedly the Fascist state of Israel....Huh?
Let's not even mention Peter Garret or Bob Brown, have either of them mentioned the N.T intervention yet?....errr nope.
This duplicity,contradiction and treachery goes back to the first emergence of that failed, dysfunctional generation in parliament.
You're probably too young to remember Gerry Hand when he was in parliament, tireless campaigner for the rights of the East Timorese living under Indonesian occupation who then emerged as a business partner of the Suharto family and their cronies.
Boomers won't help you, the sooner we get them out of parliament the better because nothing will change, everything they do try to do will fail because they are utterly lacking what used to be called "character" and what we'd now call "integrity".
Their parents abandoned them, absolved them of any social or personal responsibility because that WW2 generation were brainwashed to the limit of their comprehension during and after the War.
The WW2 generation lost the War and then lost control of their country, the real bad guys were the winners and they warped the minds of the Boomers, effectively rendered them useless to society, so much so that they were telling my generation not to have babies and that we were all going to die in a Nuclear War or an environmental disaster anyway...no I'm not joking that's what they used to tell us in school.
Break out of that mindset, don't listen to the boomers and certainly don't rely on them, just work toward getting them out of power as quickly as possible and then we'll see the real lay of the land

"fatherless children" ?

Recognition of gay marriage will neither increase nor decrease the incidence of fatherless children.

Lesbian couples, and single women for that matter, can already legally have children. Nothing will change.

Recognising gay marriage is little more than the government and society acknowledging what already exists and, in turn, recognising everyone as equals in our society. What is so threatening about that?

All this fear and loathing has got me perplexed...

Cornflower, there are two issues that are being conflated in this debate.

One is the issue of government regulation of all sexual relationships through the Marriage Act and de facto legislation.

The other is the issue of same sex couples having the same rights as heterosexual couples, ie including same sex couples in the same legal structure as heteros.

If you disapprove of de facto legislation across the board, that should be kept separate from your disapproval of equality for same sex couples.

I don't recall an outcry from gays and lesbians when they were included in some of the de facto legislation, quite the opposite, in fact.

There are many pieces of legislation none of us have any "choice" about, and many of us don't like or want them. That's the price we pay for living in a liberal democracy.

But everybody in this liberal democracy has the inalienable right to be included in its legislations, and to exclude anybody is discriminatory and unfair. It's especially disgraceful to exclude human beings from any of our social systems solely on the grounds of their sexual preference.

There is no ambiguity in my use of the word inclusion. I mean exactly that. The inclusion of gays and lesbians in our social system of marriage.

There are many same sex couples who do not share your perception of registered marriage and de facto legislation as government interference in their relationships, just as there are many heteros who disagree with you. The difference is, the heteros have the choice to engage with this system or not, and gays and lesbians don't.

Jay Of Melboune

What is your issue with baby boomers, I mean seriously. You seem to have some warped idea about the thinking process of baby boomers and their ideology and decisions they make or will make. Sure the majority of the population might be over a certain age soon, but its mix of ages and sexualities who are creating influence and utimately shaping the country, I mean who's to say we don't have a thirty year old prime minister in a few years, or who could of predicted a twenty year old MP getting elected to federal government from a part of consertive Queensland thirty years ago. This world is moving very fast and its heading in a positive direction for us GLBT people, you only need to look back at the 1950's to know that the worlds view on homosexuality has changed for the better - its just happening slower or faster in different parts of the world. Soon there is going to be so many openly gay people in the world with influence that the issue of gay rights can only get better and better. Its 2010 and in NSW, ACT and WA there is no discrimination in law which directly targets gays, and in all the other states and territories nearly all discrimination which targeted gays and lesbians has been removed thanks to mainly Labor governments. Even gay men are kissing one another on primetime tv now, thanks to the shows Will And Grace and Modern Family. Im sorry but marriage equality is inevitable.

briar rose, "But everybody in this liberal democracy has the inalienable right to be included in its legislations, and to exclude anybody is discriminatory and unfair."

It you really believe that why aren't you promoting polygamy at the same time? News agencies have given examples where a man has more than one wife and that is accepted by government agencies such as Centrelink. What about the 'discrimination' against group marriage? The logical extension of your 'rights' argument is that the Marriage Act should not discriminate at all and anything goes. What if any restrictions would you favour and why?

It is silly to say that the coverage of the Marriage Act isn't universal when plainly it is. However, as is the case with all legislation, there are conditions that have to be satisfied. Similarly not all people can claim particular tax benefits unless they meet stated criteria. Or do you believe that the Tax Act fails because it is discriminatory too?

BTW, didn't you previously argue that the Marriage Act was non-discriminatory, but Howard made it discriminatory?

BR, "I don't recall an outcry from gays and lesbians when they were included in some of the de facto legislation, quite the opposite, in fact."

There is resistance as evidenced by the problems being experienced in compliance. 'Compliance' is now relevant because of that 'inclusion' you are fond of mentioning. The de facto regulations just don't fit the lifestyle or culture of most gays and since when did they need someone else deciding for them when they are in a de facto relationship or not? Big Sister lives.

You claim there are many gays who do not object to what you are deciding for them but where are the numbers to prove that? Has anyone done a survey of gays, or isn't that necessary because their minds are being made up for them? This article provides the opportunity to put up facts and numbers to support the changes you and others propose for the gay community and so far you have failed to do that.

Cornflower,the Marriage Act was non-discriminatory until the Howard government amended it with a definition of marriage. That definition should now be removed.

I think the gay community has a strong voice, and can be trusted to take vocal action if there is wide disapproval of de facto legislation that affects them. Likewise so can the hetero community, who are not in any great numbers arguing to have this legislation overturned.

You are conflating the issues again.

I have no personal opinions on polygamy. As with everything else, the notion of this being accepted practice should be put to the test by those supporting polygamy becoming active in arguing for inclusion in the Marriage Act, just as those supporting same sex marriage are arguing for inclusion.

I don't know what on earth the Tax Act has to do with this debate, except that there are probably people who feel discriminated against by parts of it. They too are free to make their case.

The lifestyle and culture of gays and lesbians is as varied as that of heterosexuals. There is no single gay and lesbian culture, human beings are individuals, not stereotypes.

@ jason84.
Maybe the numerical designation in your signature means something other than your age because you express yourself like a 60 year old.
It's all "Me Me Me,Gimme Gimme Gimme", ever think that the intolerant, totalitarian social construct you call "Gayism" might not be good for society?
"Marriage equality' I heard Sarah Hanson Young use that term on the Radio yesterday and I nearly crashed my car from laughing.
Are Football and Golf "equal"?
Are Cats and Dogs "equal"?
Homosexuals can't have children naturally from a pair bonding,they either need a third party, the intervention of science and the law or all three. Heterosexual marriage is the basic unit of society,of humanity it's valued above anything else by the world's population but you want to tell me your contrivance called "equal love" will be viewed as "equal".
I'm not saying homosexuality is unnatural in and of itself, but the politically motivated social construct of "Gayism" is totally unnatural.
I've been meaning to ask, what's next after "Equal Love"?
You're caught up in something you probably don't understand, "permanent revolution" is one way of describing it.
So after you achieve the semblance of parity on this front what's the next sacred cow for the chop, when your Boomer allies want to do something really repugnant or stupid, as they're prone to do will you back them?
When you have "power" over the definition of marriage what's the next thing you want "power' over, you've expressed a desire to end freedom of speech for dissenters and and admiration for genocidal,totalitarian and Proto fascist regimes overseas so I'd guess you'd support any measures to suppress anyone who was against your definition of "diversity".

TrashcanMan you say, “Recognition of gay marriage will neither increase nor decrease the incidence of fatherless children.” What nonsense. Indeed, even leftwing lesbian activists have admitted that they’re after the traditional family. Your statements echo the propaganda parroted by people in the 1970s, in relation to expressive divorce. The social engineers have been wrong at every turn, so what makes this new social experiment stable?

Princeton’s Satinover also states that: "We know that motherlessness has a different impact on children than fatherlessness does. Therefore, we have every reason to expect that children raised in female unions will turn out to have a different set of problems than those raised in motherless unions. These children will be different from children raised in heterosexual unions. So we will create three different classes of children." Experiment, indeed.

Jay.

You argue that some people have more worth than others, although you attempt to hide this argument in various sideways arguments (e.g. football and golf... wtf?)

And if "the politically motivated social structure of "Gayism" is totally unnatural", as you say, then so is any politically motivated social structure and therefore any social structure that's progressed beyond tribalism. (Is "gayism" even a social structure?)

Flying in an aeroplane at 40,000 ft is also totally unnatural. Abstinence from sex is very unnatural. That's not evidence to say these things are wrong.

Now, according to your previous arguments, marriage is for reproduction and reproduction only. Therefore, the following marriages should not be given legal status:

- Elderly couples (widows etc.)
- Barren couples (which includes many mentally and physically disabled couples)
- Couples who do not wish to have children
- Gay couples
- Can anyone else add to this list?

So what is it you are arguing for? Marriage rights only to those who are willing and able to reproduce? Or suppression of equal rights?

Also, read my previous post about the "fatherless children" myth you've peddled earlier.

Equality is the issue here, that's all people are asking for. A change in legislation affects nothing but the self-esteem and feeling of acceptance experienced by many good people in our society.

HB..

Lesbian couples can already have children. Just like any non-married, defacto couple can. AND they do, whether you like it or not.

Therefore I fail to see how changing the legislation regarding gay marriage is going to make an ounce of difference.

BTW, do you even understand what social engineering is? Controlling who can and can't be married is a form of social engineering, which is what YOU are arguing for.

More fear and loathing without reason...

TrashcanMan you say that, “Lesbian couples can already have children. Just like any non-married, defacto couple can. AND they do, whether you like it or not. Therefore I fail to see how changing the legislation regarding gay marriage is going to make an ounce of difference.”

That’s my point. Children are being stuffed around so why give it more legitimacy? Why bless fatherlessness? By endorsing wrongs, you simply add to the problem and become an enabler.

The problem with adults-only libertarians is that they refuse to admit that fatherlessness and crime are good friends. As Dr. Tryce Hansen states: "Two women can both be good mothers, but neither can be a good father."

WE

We are sure your aware but we mention it now,
We Gay set believe we are “Holy Cow”.
We love to be seen at the “Gay Mardi-Gras”
We had it sanctioned by Premier Bob Carr
We belittle Christians, remember Fred Nile?
We target Conservative thought; that, we love to defile.
We scoff at the norms of society, wow
We too want to take the Wedding Vow
We know it’s not normal and the odd thing to do
We, we, we, we, just don’t care about you
We want the right to your children as well
We want rights to adoption, though that’s hard to sell
We captured PM with the art of Bob Brown
We know he hails from a “distant” Tasmanian town
We just don’t care the Crown is now ours
We suggest all dissenters get under cold showers.
We win the battle the war has been won
We want what we want and won’t that be fun….

Sad.

@ Jay Of Melbourne

I can't speak for other gay people, only myself. People who are not gay and were not brought up in an age of the "gayism" may see the whole context of modern homosexuality being forced upon them because this generation is much more open to homosexuality. I never force my homosexuality on other people, yes I am who I am - and I wont hide my sexuality. Often when Im on the internet I come across blogs like this and because so many people don't seem to understand homosexuality I feel obliged to post in a blog with my views, this is not about me forcing my views on you - its me simply explaining homosexuality though the eyes of me a gay person. Look you don't have to agree with gay marriage or homosexuality but labelling gays as intolerant or totalitarian is just silly and a huge over reaction.

@ floatinglili

"Opposing marriage for gays won't stop homosexual sexual abuse or bullying"

What sexual abuse? Because gays are a minority your more likely to face sexual abuse from a hetrosexual.

Jason84.
As I said, I'm not Anti Gay because of homosexuals, I'm Anti "Gayism" because like all "Ism's" it's ideology based on lies and prone to corruption.
All I'm really asking you to do is look at what and who has attached itself to your "cause", do you really think after all this time that you can still "use" the system?
You're being played by "Power", not the other way around, house rules, no exceptions.
I wish you well, as I do all homosexuals who want to contribute to a free and peaceful society but the way it's going you're encouraging neither peace nor freedom by allying yourselves with or asking permission from "The forces of Darkness".
Do you seriously want the support of people who kill babies in Gaza, or who starve the elderly in Pretoria or jail the politically incorrect in Ottawa?

Jason84’

Ask yourself a question or two; do you understand the word “No”: Self-respect: Consideration: Others: Restraint: Community: Low-profile: Driving wedges: Long-term effect: Back-Lash: Self-obsessed: And many more questions applicable to the subject, all listed under the heading, “Consequences”?

The other self-interested group in our society on a comparison to the “Gay Rights” movement today, and using identical strategies to achieve what has been masked as “Political Agenda”, is the “Sex Party”.

The sex party is a collection of socially sick individuals (Interestingly, the term socially sick, loosely describes the “Sociopath”) lacking in attributes from the above list of “Consequences” and equally the cause of social harm in our communities.

My question is “What is the final and ultimate goal of these two groups”; in simple terms, ”Where does it all stop”. Apparently there is no end; the quest appears endless and perpetuates under the banner of; “Human rights and inequity”.

There is a disturbing rise of Sociopathic behaviour displayed more and more in the public arena. In the more marked sense, all the above, however not only but also, a trend to violent and abusive behaviour exhibited particularly on the streets of our major Cities, as Law and Order descends into Riot by drunken Mobs, also attempting to control society and pushing agenda of personal interest, the right to drink to excess.

That is a right that also overarches all Social Norms and Conventions and is supported by Laws permitting endless opening hours of Clubs and Hotels; rights stealthily gained over time serving narrow interests.

@ Jay Of Melbourne

"I'm Anti "Gayism" because like all "Ism's" it's ideology based on lies and prone to corruption"

Firslty, there is no such thing as "gayism". I and most GLBT only want to be treated equal, and to be treated equal that includes having the option of being able to marry or not. I would have to say religion is more prone to lies and corruption than gay people just wanting equal rights, because thats all its really about - being treated equal - nothing more, nothing less. There is no secret agenda or plan.

HB.... "why give it more legitimacy?"

Because giving it more legitimacy may give those children more equality and acceptance in society.

By denying the legitimacy of certain family structures in the community, you are taking away the legitimacy of innocent children born into those situations.

You are telling kids brought unwittingly into certain situations that their families are not legitimate, therefore that they are lesser.

Is that what you want to tell those kids? Because those kids already exist, you can't change that. Should they be told their families are not equal to other families, that they are inferior beings purely because of the circumstances they were born into?

You claim to protect these children, but in reality you are creating a situation where they feel isolated and unaccepted by society.

Well done.

@ diver dan

Well I guess this is where we differ in our opinions. We gay people want to be treated equal, Virtually nothing is given to us on a plate. So when GLBT lobby groups make contact with the government in an attempt to gain what we see is right, social consertives jump up and down and scream about a gay agenda. I don't see how asking for basic rights in the likes of superanuation or tax for instance is wrong. Diver Dan I suggest you ask yourself why most gay people want to be treated equally. People who are against gay rights could be seen as having an agenda.

It's pity that the author of this opinion Ben-Peter Terpstra fails to mention the thousands of dollars worth of entitlements that same-sex couples should have recieved, but can't because they can't legally marry. Perhapes Ben-Peter Terpstra could explain about all the benefits workplaces offer to staff who have a spouse. The author should also check out this link which provides some information about the discrimination we same-sex couples face when it comes to superanuation because we can't legally marry: http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/samesex/inquiry/submissions/128.pdf

@jason84
Stop with the "equality" BS, Golfers don't discriminate against Hockey players unless they're trying to play Golf.
Homosexuality and Heterosexuality are two different things, are they not?
I still can't seem to get through to you the point that asking permission for "equality" from the System and more broadly from a society that doesn't recognise homosexual marriage as an "equal" state is pointless.
Furthermore what happened to "Liberation"?
How does "equality" square with "liberty"?
I'm using particularism, in my case Race as a tool for Liberation from Tyranny and state control, and you're using your homosexuality to fit into that mechanism?
When did "If you can't beat them join them" become a "Gay" concept?
Jason they don't care about you and a good few are downright evil, your "Gay" leaders will eventually the side of the Tyrants, just like the Green "leaders", the Aboriginal "leaders", the Muslim "leaders" and the Nationalist "leaders".
I'd suggest you get get clued in to groups like Bashback:
http://bashbacknews.wordpress.com/
Obviously they're not my cup of tea but they are more toward my way of thinking than "Gay Marriage".

@ Jay Of Melbourne

"I still can't seem to get through to you the point that asking permission for "equality" from the System and more broadly from a society that doesn't recognise homosexual marriage as an "equal" state is pointless."

Thats because I don't subscribe to your way of thinking. Social consertives would love us to give up advocating for marriage equality, but we are not going to. We in the gay community have learnt that if we want something which we rightly deserve, then we must fight for it - and its proven to work time and time again in gaining our rights.

The term equality comes from equal, and thats what we want. We Australian gays and lesbians have moved on from gay liberation - unless your a gay person living in the likes of Uganda.

@ Jay Of Melbourne

I'd suggest you get get clued in to groups like Pink Pistols:
http://www.pinkpistols.org/
Obviously they're not my cup of tea but they are more toward my way of thinking than your ideology.

Jason'84

Yes, but the conservative argument against the advance of “Gay Rights” stops well before the argument for rights of the same conservatives to marry their pet dog. I have no doubt that out “there” in the community are “dotty” old conservative codgers willing and stupid enough for that possibility to eventuate; but that eventuality should not transpire, and neither should the unnatural act of same gender marriage.

You must believe in your heart of hearts that same gender Marriage is as silly in appearance to normal members of society, as would be the example if any member of society were to marry their pet dog. Both the above acts are illogical, abnormal and against social norms.

“In Your Face” outrageous nonsense such as Gay “Mardi-grass” coupled with a wish list of same gender Marriage and rights to adopt Children, are confronting to the same conservative element in society as support, on the whole, human rights that allow freedom of movement, freedom to education, freedom to live together, and many other freedoms for Homosexuals, willingly granted and unopposed by the forgiving conservative element you often deride in your posts.

The limit has been reached for unopposed giving to the Homosexual base. It is all over, get on with the enjoyment of past gains, be thankful. Now is the moment in time for giving something back to the freedom loving society you have taken from for so long. And the return gift expected? Well simply “Back Off”.

Jay of Melbourne:

Well, the saints go marching ‘out’. What an ant- climax. Using the facility of a simple and historically accepted method of “Points Count Back” used often to determine close calls and determine winners in many sports, the primary score in the first match 10/9 would win for them the coveted cup.

@ diver dan

Well we gays and lesbians don't intend to be "in your face", perhapes you need to question why you think that. When you claim that we are "in your face", it suggests to me that you have a problem with accepting other people - so thats something you obviously need to work out with yourself instead of attacking gay people.

"The limit has been reached for unopposed giving to the Homosexual base"

And what evidence have you got for that claim?

Some people are of the opinion that by allowing same-sex marriage the institution will be ‘watered down’. For example, ex-Prime Minister John Howard stated “It is a question of preserving as an institution in our society, marriage as having a special character”. Statements such as this are particularly offensive. It suggests that the inclusion of same-sex couples into the institution of marriage will somehow tarnish or spoil its image. To the contrary, we believe that elevating the status of same-sex relationships to those of different-sex relationships will, if anything, strengthen marriage as a social norm. As such, people who are concerned about the preservation of marriage may do best to focus on ways to increase its appeal amongst the current population, rather than direct their energies towards the exclusion of a select group of individuals from its privileges.

Jason84 says:

Some people are of the opinion that by allowing same-sex marriage the institution will be ‘watered down’. For example, ex-Prime Minister John Howard stated “It is a question of preserving as an institution in our society, marriage as having a special character”. Statements such as this are particularly offensive.

“Some people”? Try the majority of the world of Jason. Penny Wong and Julia Gillard have made similar points.

But of course, deliberately creating fatherless families is bad for young boys. There’s enough father hunger and fatherless boys clogging up our jails, without more social engineering-style politics. And if you cared so much about the institution of marriage, where were you when lesbian feminists were trashing Christian marriages for decades?

It seems like your memory is very selective, and that you’re offended by facts

@ History Buff

I think we have to agree that no matter what survery results that provides evidence that the population supports marriage equality, you will never agree on - there will allways be something wrong with the survey or results - and there has been hundreds of surveys which show that the majory of the Australian population since 2006 support marriage equality.

Imagine you are Penny Wong for a minute. You are in the Labor Party trying to make it more open to people like you. It’s quite macho, it’s blokey there are more than a few homophobes still hanging around. What’s more some of them think you’re an uppity dyke who stole their gig. You’ve come a long way and got a huge promotion under a previous strongly Christian Prime Minister who was never going to support gay marriage – but he did support you in changing 58 laws to create near equality. And then your boss gets dumped, and there’s a chance you are going to lose your job altogether at an election.

So, does now seem like a good time to maybe throw it all away - without any guarantee that overnight your party will back your new willingness to say you support marriage equality? Possibly not.

It has been suggested that the purpose of marriage is to establish an appropriate family environment in which children will be conceived and raised, and that as such there is no place for same-sex relationships in marriage. This view conflicts with the fact that different-sex couples who choose not to have children, or who form relationships in non-childbearing years, are still entitled to marry or re-marry. Further, and very importantly, it discounts the substantial number of children who are currently being raised in a same-sex couple family.

Just face it Jason, your arguments are pretty weird. Even Obama, Julia Gillard, Penny Wong, and Hillary Clinton reject “gay marriage.”

You said: “It has been suggested that the purpose of marriage is to establish an appropriate family environment in which children will be conceived and raised, and that as such there is no place for same-sex relationships in marriage. This view conflicts with the fact that different-sex couples who choose not to have children, or who form relationships in non-childbearing years, are still entitled to marry or re-marry.” No it doesn’t. Why should we risk one child in the name of social engineering? The fact is that many people will use their marriage certificate to get children.

You also say: “Further, and very importantly, it discounts the substantial number of children who are currently being raised in a same-sex couple family.” So essentially, two wrongs make a right?

What rubbish. I’m aware that lesbian couples are already experimenting on children with their anti-father models. Again, Obama and co. are right. We don’t need to legalise weirdness.

@ History Buff

In 2003, the Canadian Psychological Association (CPA) issued its response to public debate about the effect of marriage of same-sex couples on children. CPA’s review of the psychological research led us to conclude that the children of same-sex parents do not differ from the children of heterosexual parents in terms of their psychosocial development, their gender development and their gender identity. In 2005, the CPA voiced its support to the House of Commons of Bill C-38, legislation legalizing marriage of same-sex couples. Weblink to evidence: http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/Marriage%20of%20Same-Sex%20Couples%20Position%20Statement%20-%20October%202006%20(1).pdf

The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual. Weblink to evidence: http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;109/2/339

In the 2000 U.S.A Census, 33 percent of female same-sex couple households and 22 percent of male same-sex couple households reported at least one child under eighteen living in their home. Some children do not know they have an LGBT parent; coming out issues vary and some parents may never come out to their children. In January 2008, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that same-sex couples have the right to adopt a child. In the U.S., LGBT people can legally adopt in all USA states.

I suggest you check out gay dads australia website, I suspect its going to be a real eye opener for you, Here's the weblink: http://gaydadsaustralia.com.au/

In October 2007, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal overturned a decision by the foreign affairs department refusing to issue a transgender woman a passport listing her as female because she is married to a woman. The tribunal ordered that she be issued a passport listing her as female, in accordance with her other official documents, thereby recognising the existence of a marriage between two persons who are legally recognised as female. Web: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-5661.html

History Buff, on 30 September you wrote:

> > As Timothy J. Dailey reminds us: 
> > “The eminent Harvard sociologist, 
> > Pitirim Sorokin, analyzed cultures 
> > spanning several thousand years on
> >  several continents, and found that
> >  virtually no society has ceased to 
> > regulate sexuality within marriage as 
> > traditionally defined, and survived.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11019#184660

In an article on the Australian Conservative website, on 3 October, Ben-Peter Terpstra wrote:

> > Timothy J. Dailey, Senior Fellow for
> >  Policy at the Family Research Council, 
> > reminds us that: “The eminent 
> > Harvard sociologist, Pitirim Sorokin, 
> > analyzed cultures spanning several 
> > thousand years on several continents, 
> > and found that virtually no society
> > has ceased to regulate sexuality within 
> > marriage as traditionally defined, 
> > and survived.”

http://australianconservative.com/2010/10/the-greens-more-same-sex-marriages-less-freedom/

If you are Ben-Peter Terpstra, maybe you could tell me why I shouldn't find it extremely creepy that you are commenting anonymously on your own article. If you're not, maybe you could explain the "coincidence". 

Well Woulfe, there has been no response from History Buff regarding your claim so I suspect that you are right on the money. I had a feeling that History Buff and the author of this article were the same person as well. Whats disturbing is that History Buff suggests that we gay people have an agenda and yet he is posting anti-gay marriage articles on a number of websites, is that not an agenda? - What a hypocrital bully.

Good research Jason. Very interesting reading.

A good friend of mine, a transgender female, and her girlfriend just had their first baby. She was smart enough to freeze her sperm before changing gender, so the baby is indeed this lesbian couple's own. AND they didn't need to be legally married to be allowed to do it.

So all of this talk of gay marriage creating "fatherless children" etc is completely irrelevant as legally recognising gay marriage does nothing to change the legality of gay parenthood.