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...