surely we have more important things to worry about than 2 men mincing down the church isle?
If they want normality then they will have to modify their behaviour, not try and modify ours

I agree with your stance on gay marriage but comparing this issue with slavery is a little wide-eyed, perhaps. Justice Murphy's website claims that only 15% of gays want to marry. This is not a major social issue in our country - but we don't have to look far to find ones that are.

Putting aside the symbolic purposes for a moment, what are the practical purposes of the movement for government registration of gay marriages?

It couldn't be, for example, a desire for the provisions of family law to apply, because the property relationships acts apply and they are in substance the same. And since the States conceded the administration of such legislation to the feds, it is even administered by the Family Court.

It can't be for family provisions act purposes (ie changing the terms of someone's will after he has died) because this applies regardless of marriage?

Is it for entitlements on intestacy?

What is the actual practical purpose?

"surely we have more important things to worry about than 2 men mincing down the church isle?"
-peter piper

How is it that 'worrying' about gay marriage is mutually exclusive with 'worrying' about 'more important' things? I'm afraid I don't quite follow your reasoning there.

"If they want normality then they will have to modify their behaviour"
-peter piper

What, stop being gay? I don't think it's that easy. I've spent a full hour this morning trying my very hardest to stop being heterosexual, and strangely enough I still find myself attracted to women.

Ken McKay’s historically illiterate and anti-Christian rants are laughable (especially when so many gays are against so-called gay marriages). I note too that he doesn’t single Muslims out with much stronger views, so he also sounds like a politically correct coward. I wonder what makes him so anti-Christian. Where does all this hostility come from?

why yes...YES..of course there should be a *conscience* vote on Gay Marriage.

THEN..we can continue fuelling the fear, hate and loathing of Christians who happen to disagree with the view that homosexual behavior is 'ok' and 'normal'.

In fact.. we can soon gather a large pack of hungy dingoes at the MCG and start feeding those 'evil' Christians to them.. should make for good sport doncha think?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1325311/Gay-rights-laws-danger-freedoms-Bishops-speak-homosexuality.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-489285/Foster-child-taken-away-Christian-couple-refuse-teach-homosexuality.html

Earlier this year, Somerset County Council's social services department asked them to sign a contract to implement Labour's new Sexual Orientation Regulations, part of the Equality Act 2006, which make discrimination on the grounds of sexuality illegal.

Officials told the couple that under the regulations they would be required to discuss same-sex relationships with children as young as 11 and tell them that gay partnerships were just as acceptable as heterosexual marriages.

Fabian 'inevitability of gradualism' and Marcusian 'Repressive Tolerance' are alive and well! Make no mistake.

http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetolerance.htm

//THIS essay examines the idea of tolerance in our advanced industrial society. The conclusion reached is that the realization of the objective of tolerance would call for intolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed.//

Welcome to the Orwellian/Marcusian/Socialist world.

With looming peak oil & global, warming gay rights are a totally a non event except for one thing:
All of the problems in the world stem from overpopulation, so yes, lets have gay marriage but a firm block on any form of child bearing and rearing. That would help to solve the population problem in a small way

Riz Too

ROFL

Yeah, I know watcha mean - say I was at a party and Brad and Angela walked in, not even a three-way..... well maybe, so long as Ange was .... maybe too much info. I'll just keep that fantasy to myself.

Sarnian

"lets have gay marriage but a firm block on any form of child bearing and rearing"

You do understand that it's straights who give birth and raise gays to begin with don't you? Gays and lezzos didn't just materialise from under a cabbage.

There are plenty of gay couples caring for children who grow up to be hetero. It is not like religious indoctrination. You can't just decide to be gay because you have 2 mums or 2 dads. In fact stats on kids of same sex parents have proven to be very successful. See here:

http://news.discovery.com/human/parents-gender-children.html

Just because someone is hetero doesn't automatically make them good parents.

I agree with the two basic points Ken is trying to make – that gays should have the same rights before the law as anyone else, and that this is a fundamental principle and should not therefore should not be subject to a conscience vote.

But I don’t think he’s going to win anyone to his point of view with this style of argument. Hyperbole about “Christian soldiers”, comparisons with Nazi Germany and hints that pluralism is threatened give more than enough reasons to dismiss Ken’s arguments out of hand – which is a shame, because his core point is a valid one.

Gay or straight, what does it matter?

Marriage is a private affair - something to do with a couple, their relatives and friends, their religion if they so choose, and whomever and whatever else they agree upon. The government should step out and have nothing to do with it.

There should be no marriage registry and the word "marriage" should not even appear in legislation: this solves the gay issue as well!

While I agree with legitimizing gay marriage, and it is the "right thing to do", it is probably the wrong time for Labor. Given the liberals' opposition a conscience vote has no chance of passing.

Given that of the demographics this is a strong Green's issue, with a majority of Labor's borderline voters against it. (from what I have read), and a Labor / Greens bloc vote would pass the resolution and have labor shed votes to the greens and libs.

Considering that labor is already lingering in the death zone with respect to primary votes, this is not the time for courageous decisions.

As for the Greens this is a win win situation, they are seen as taking the initiative and stand to gain the like minded labor voters, whilst the more conservative blue collar workers who are labor's base (and who would never vote green) are likely to defect to the libs. If Labor in the future is so crippled it can never govern without the greens, the greens are laughing all the way to the bank.

This is a wedge of epic proportions, and all labor can do is spin and weave like a prize fighter after a few too many blows.

"the benefits are likely to last a lifetime and benefit future partners and offspring"

Personally I believe that such a dramatic change could only occur as a result of the personal touch and example of the particular teacher, rather than by the course-material. Sadly though, I was not able to download that document in order to find out more about that teacher.

But let us assume for now that it is indeed the course-material which does the magic. Let us further assume that one needs to be of a certain age (not too young nor too old) in order to receive the full benefits of this ethics-course - this raises a serious ethical dilemma:

Should a student from the ethics-study group tell students from the control-group about what they studied in ethics-class?

If s/he does, then the trial would fail, indicating no difference, thus the project will be dropped.
It s/he doesn't, then the control-group students, along with their partners and offspring, would miss on a lifetime benefit.

Sorry, my previous post belongs to another thread ("Ethics should be a course for all pupils : Comments"). Please ignore.

Ken,

Your arguments contain quite a bit of twaddle.

Here's one.

The Nazi's in the beer halls of Munich in the 30's were socialists just like the modern day Labor Party and their greens henchmen.

Here's another.

In a traditional hetrosexual marriage it is common to have two partners that define the marriage.ie A husband and a wife. Are homosexual partners in a marriage to be required to nominate which is the husband and which is the wife?

It seems to me all this discussion and nastiness about marriage could be simply solved by making it a legal requirement for everybody to be united in a non-religious Civil Union and leave marriage to be conducted by the Christian Churches should that be the desire of hetro-sexual couples.

There then eveybody has the same legal rights and recognition and traditional marriage, which in modern times has been the preserve of the christian churches, is confined to hetrosexuals as an add on with no additional legal rights.

You know, it's not the Churches who are trying to alter things for the rest of us, as you try to suggest. It's the homosexual community that is trying to foist it's lifestyle, which the churches see as an abomination, onto the the churches traditions.

Your sort of silly twisting of facts is one of the reasons most of us regard this push by a very small minority as containing much that is simply illogical and stupid.

Since the knives are out for Joolya don't you wonder how long it's going to be before she drops her principled stance on marriage and backflips, just like Kevvy did over 'his greatest moral challenge'.

A marriage is at core a legal contract recognising a serious commitment on the part of two adults to each other. It has significant consequences relating to mutual obligations to each other, to property rights in the event that the contract is dissolved or one partner dies, etc etc.

Clearly the term marriage has become loaded with all sorts of emotional overtones relating to its very long history. But it seems to me that these aspects can be set aside if we look at it as a legal contract.

Doing that makes it clear, doesn't it, that any adults of sufficiently mature age should have the right to enter into a marriage contract, and to benefit (and be obligated by) the terms of that contract.

to history buff,
the organised christian right is attempting to flex it s political muscle to restrict the freedom of others hence my criticism.
muslims are not trying to take over political parties and inflict their values in a constricting manner

to rhian, wake up and look around at the influence of the christian soldiers, high youth suicides, alienation , response untrained chaplains in schools, how about putting trained counsellors and mental health workers rather than paying off the christian right.
we are in a struggle between religious bigotry and remaining an open and free society.
minorities being prosecuted, its amazing when christians were fleeing the horrors of communisms the church heirachy breached tolerance for refugees, when its muslims fleeing the horrors of the taliban the churches are silent.

<<Why is it that mainstream politics baulks at the provision of the same rights and protections for homosexuals?>>
Why is it that homosexual activists baulk at the provision of the same rights and protections for incestuous couples and polyamorous groups?
Do they do so only so as not to undermine their credibility or would they actually deny loving incestuous couples and polyamorous groups the same "fundamental human rights" that they are demanding?
Either reason seems hypocritical.
Just how inclusive are homosexual activists anyway?
Not very, it seems.

<<Why is it that a homosexual's love of their partner is not afforded the same status as a heterosexual's?>>
Why is it that an incestuous person's love of their kin is not afforded the same status as a homosexual's by homosexual activists?

<<We say that human rights provide equal recognition and protection without discrimination on the basis of sex, religion, age, political beliefs, race or sexual preference.>>
Why do homosexual activists exclude those whose sexual preference is for multiple partners or for kinfolk?
What possible objection, other than not wanting to taint their cause, could homosexual activists have to two adult brothers or two adult sisters wanting to marry?
Why should they be denied, by homosexual activists, the same "fundamental human rights" that homosexuals are seeking for themselves?

It is profoundly hypocritical for homosexual activists to demand their own "right" to "marry" without embracing the cause of people with other sexual preferences.

How can they limit eligibility on the basis of sexual preference when they are seeking to expand eligibility on the basis of sexual preference.
They can't.

I personally believe that homosexuals would have no real problem with incestuous or polygamous marriage except insofar as the acknowledgement of that fact would harm their own cause.

Come on.
Get real.
Two blokes.
Two brothers.
What's the difference?
They're hardly going to produce genetically deformed children.
Stop the pretence.
But then the game would be revealed.

The promotion of this perversion just leads to more disease, more death and sends a very poor message to future generations. Many in politics have already their consciences seared. Otherwise they would not swap partners so regularly, live in sin or agree to murder unborn babies on mass. A conscience vote in Parliament is a joke. Look how many lies the current Government told before the election. Someone with a unseared conscience could not lie as regularly as this mob do.

Congratulations Proxy, that was an excellent point!

Dear Runner,

Questions such as whether homosexuality, pornography, incest, partner-swapping, abortions, etc. etc. are good or bad, may be interesting, but are not the subject of this particular discussion.

This discussion is only about legal matters, not moral matters.
Legal matters are of a secular nature.

Would you agree that God gave us free choice?

In that case, who is the government to try to take away God's gift from us?

Remember, one cannot be good unless one CHOOSES to be good. Acting out of compulsion simply does not count as virtue! Making (and enforcing) laws denies us not only the option to be bad or naughty, but also denies us the option to be righteous and virtuous, to allow our inherent goodness to shine and our divine spark to win. With compulsion, without the freedom to choose, life's own purpose is lost:

"See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil; In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments [snipped-for-brevity-and-space]... I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live"

[Deuteronomy 30, verses 15-19]

As a lover of God, your own blood should boil at the idea of a secular institute undermining God's essential gifts to humankind.

----
(sorry, this is my 4th post here for the day, so it will be a while till I can respond again)

Yuyutsu
You make some good points however the article is about having a 'conscience' vote on what they call gay marriage. I would of thought conscience implied moral. One definition reads 'Conscience is an aptitude, faculty, intuition, or judgment of the intellect that distinguishes right from wrong.' Legal matters are moral matters.

My point is clear. Anyone without a depraved seared conscience could not vote for something as destructive or perverted as what is called gay marriage. And no I would not want to take away people's choices. That is normally more in line with secular dogma.

INCESTUOUS COUPLES.

The ONLY reason that a father cannot have a sexual relionship with his daughter is.... GENETIC. i.e..if he fathered a child the chances of deformity or mental retardation are high.

SO....SOLUTION. If a man finds himself overwhelmingly 'offspring attracted' and has struggled with this attraction for years.. but has finally resigned himself to "I was born this way"...then the ONLY thing he needs to do in order for that relationship to be fully satisfying and enjoyable is to have a VASECTOMY!

As long as the couple prevent the possibility of PREGNANCY then there is no biological reason whatsover for them not to be married.

Just so is the 'End Game' of a society lacking a moral anchor.

When sex crazed deviates insist on the 'moral' acceptability of their position.... there is no limit to where it will lead.

Man/Woman....Man/Woman/dog....Man/man Man/boy Woman/woman... Woman/Woman/sheep...and so it goes on...and on..and on.

When the dutch boy removed his finger from the dyke... the flood didn't come immediately... the water 'wore' a hole bigger and bigger.

But the flood did come.

And any bright spark who things they can drag that boy away from our societal dyke is in for a suprise.

Rather than defining a crucial party or national political moment, Ken, you overflow with an emotional anti-religious tirade.

Marriage is, by its foundation, a religious institution. To insist that same sex relationships be recognised the same as marriage declares the desire to imitate the marriage ideal and thus honour and uphold the institution.

To insist on being allowed to play the game, while dismantling its basic rules doesn’t make much sense.

Many gays realise this, and see the fallacy in pushing for it.

Yours is a side-issue, Ken, but we see the real agenda in your anti-Christian polemic.

That's a very narrow view, Boaz.

>>When sex crazed deviates insist on the 'moral' acceptability of their position.... there is no limit to where it will lead<<

It could, of course, lead to the founding of a fairly major dynasty

I presume you do know that Abraham married his sister?

Fortunately, you are not in the cleft stick in which creationists find themselves, having to explain the descendants of Adam and Eve without mentioning the "i" word.

Autre temps, autre moeurs.

Dear Runner,

Thank you for your kind reply.

A 'conscience vote' is a political term. It simply means that a member of parliament is allowed to vote as they wish and not as their party wishes. It does not imply that all members of parliament necessarily have a conscience, actually follow a moral code, or have the faculty to distinguish right from wrong.

I understand the confusion of words, but this is still a secular term and a merely secular issue.

Now, nobody actually is voting for gay marriage, or ever suggested to encourage it: this vote is only about allowing you and I such an option - along with the blessed opportunity to reject that option. Once gay marriage is allowed, you should actually rejoice for all those people, by far the vast majority, who COULD marry their own gender, but choose not to.

As I mentioned earlier, my personal view is that all this storm in a tea-cup should be bypassed: the state should stay away from marriages altogether, of any kind. It is none of its business.

ALGORE is RIGHT-ON again!

""When sex crazed deviates insist on the 'moral' acceptability of their position.... there is no limit to where it will lead.""

The Sodomites have lead us to the End Times and the LORD will return soon, this is a GOOD THING so bring on GAY marrige.

Yuyutsu

'I understand the confusion of words, but this is still a secular term and a merely secular issue.'

You are right. The demands by fundamentalist secularist to insist on hijacking words that pertain to morality such as 'marriage' and now conscience is evident. Now some claim they should have a 'conscience' vote. Isn't this Labour minister the one who stabbed Rudd in the back for his own slimy purposes along with the PM. Conscience vote (please!) Again if their consciences were not seared we could expect a reasonable outcome. With this current generation of secular social engineers it is doubtful that a conscience vote would produce any sort of reasonable outcome for future generations.

"(British Columbia's) attorney general has asked the B.C. Supreme Court to determine whether the law against polygamy is consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and if charges may only be laid when the polygamous relationship is with a minor or involves abuse."
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/polygamy-case-opens-in-british-columbia-supreme-court/

Hey, we already knew where this "gay" "marriage" thing was going.

<<We say that human rights provide equal recognition and protection without discrimination on the basis of sex, religion, age, political beliefs, race or sexual preference.>>

How can you stop at homosexual preference?
That would be discrimination.
Polyphobes!

Dan S de Merengue the arrogance of christians astound me, marriage is a religious instituion is it , are you saying that only believers in a mystical entity or the supernatural entity can get married. or that the community cannot create an institution to suit its needs unless the religous disciples approve.

marriage is an institute that was originally established to transfer chatel (women) from their fathers to their husbands. But the institution has changed to meet the changing values in our society.

can you tell me why christians celebrate Jesus Christ's birthday on a date that bears absolutely no resemblance to the day he was born on?
the truth of the matter was that the pope in about 300 ad was concerned about recruitment, many people were attracted to traditional pagan beliefs. the celebration of the winter solstice etc was a significant event and in true christain spirit a decree was issued to celebrate christ's birth to enable a christian celebration to rival the pagan's activities. so just as christianity appropriated the winter solstice celebrations it is trying to appropriate the institution of marriage and have exclusive control over its rules

Marriage pre dates Christianity or even Judaism and has existed in every human culture.

For Christians to claim ownership of the concept is laughable.

"As the Scriptures say, 'A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.' This is a great mystery, but it is an illustration of the way Christ and the church are one."

Traditionally, this is a picture or concept on which Western marriage was based; one woman & one man, for life. 

Dear Dan,

The correct translation is: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and they shall become one flesh".

Now this describes a subtle occurence, not an external one. Externally, biologically, we know that a man and a woman can never share the same flesh (except for Siamese twins), nor can a son with his father/mother.

Just as the subtle does not show in the gross, so does the gross, the external formality of a marriage/wedding does not guarantee that subtle occurence of becoming one flesh. A ring and a document, or even the blessings and dedications of clergymen, are no substitute for the REALITY of being married. It is either present, or it is not.

Likewise, no formal social act is required for that subtle event, as described in Genesis 2, to occur. This subtlety could occur before the formal ceremony, after it, or even without it.

Historically, marriage gradually evolved from a woman-purchase contract (as is still formally the case in Judaism), to its current western concept of equality. The ring, for example, was considered the price paid for the woman - it was unheard of a women giving a ring to a man!

Social customs have ever been changing and will continue to change, but are of no spiritual significance. You should therefore let go of the fuss and concentrate on the essence.

If God does not intend for two men or two women to become one flesh, then it will simply never occur, no matter how much confectionary, rice and flowers fly through the air, so there is nothing there for you to worry about.

Sorry Dan, I see that a few words came missing in the translation:

"Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall stick with his wife and they shall become one flesh"

Dear Yuyutsu,
I don't think there is anything 'subtle' about a man uniting with a woman. That's probably one of the last adjectives I might choose.

Romance can be subtle. That's not exactly what we're talking about here. A man becoming one with a woman has quite the physical element to it. Marriage combines a physical, mental and spiritual union.

I can't see what is gained by allowing same sex couples to be wed.  It would only work to undermine marriage and make the laws more confusing than they already are. But I'm becoming used to living in a country where politicians pass strange laws.

I would agree that social customs are continually changing. Yet the Christian view of marriage does not change in it's essence.  

 

Dear Dan,

The bible is very specific, it says "and they shall become one flesh".
Now physiologically, on the gross level, this never happens, not even during sexual intercourse (with fluids and skin in between), so the remaining option is the subtle. Whether you believe in the bible or not, is of course up to you.

"I can't see what is gained by allowing same sex couples to be wed".

Neither do I, because nobody should need to ask the government's permission to wed in the first place. It is not for them to allow or disallow what should be one's private affair.

One should of course ask the permission of their prospective spouse.
One may choose to ask for the permission of his/her parents.
One may choose to ask for the permission of his/her prospective parents in law.
One may choose to ask for the permission of their religious minister.
One may choose to ask for the permission of their spiritual guide or mentor.

But asking for the permission of the government or of the secular legislators? what can be gained by that? who are they anyway? What moral authority do they wield?

As you mentioned yourself, we are innundated by heaps of confusing and strange laws. Politicians are intruding in areas of life to which they should have no access, marriage being just one of them, religion being another.

So correctly-speaking, nobody is actually asking the politicians to "allow same sex couples to wed" - what in fact the politicians are being asked to do, is to repeal one of their intruding laws, specifically that law which prohibits same-sex couples from being wed.

Obviously, being a Christian, nothing is going to change for you, except...

What is to be gained is greater personal responsibility and the rejection of the culture that allows governments to dictate opressive laws, including other laws that limit the free practice of religion.

If you want the laws that oppress you to be repealed, you should help your fellows who are oppressed by other laws to repeal theirs, then they will help you too.

Dear Yuyutsu,
Perhaps we might have different definitions for the word 'subtle.'.

There is also a social aspect to marriage, in which society takes into account cultural norms and expectations and frames it's laws accordingly.

You speak of laws that limit the free practice of religion and marriage being a private affair. In this line, are you happy for men to have polygamous marriages in line with their religion? Should the Australian government permit this practice?

I've lived outside of Australia and have friends who are polygamists, so it's not just a theoretical question for me.   

Dear Dan,

Certainly it is neither for myself nor for the government to either permit polygamy (or polyandry) or to unpermit (forbid) it. Neither myself nor the government have any right to tell you what to do in your own bedroom and in your own church (and in many other places, so long as you do not hurt others).

"There is also a social aspect to marriage, in which society takes into account cultural norms and expectations and frames it's laws accordingly."

This practice is called nowadays "social engineering". It is an atrocity and an abomination. Only God has the right to engineer us, and He blessed us with free choice - who are they to take it away?

Dear Yuyutsu,
If I hear you correctly, you're saying the government should not have any laws governing social norms pertaining to marriage and other such personal affairs. You say they have no right to tell you what to do in your own bedroom.  
If so, what is the point or benefit in having same sex unions sanctioned or condoned by the state? 

 

Dear Dan,

"If so, what is the point or benefit in having same sex unions sanctioned or condoned by the state?"

None whatsoever.

I was not asking the state to sanction or condone anything, only to register.

It is my preference that the state do not mockingly attempt to sanction or condone ANY kind of union between individuals, including a man with a woman.
It is my preference that the word "marriage" should not even appear anywhere in legislation, but since it currently does, and since there are all sorts of legal privileges attached to the fact of being registered as "married" (regardless even of the actual existence or absence of a true marriage, as discussed earlier), then so long as this is the case, it is my second preference that the government merely and mechanically registers/deregisters any two or more people who wish to declare themselves "married", without attaching any meaning to that word, because making a marriage meaningful can only be up to the people involved in that marriage.

If a man and a woman can arbitrarily declare themselves legally "married" in order to obtain certain privileges, even if they are obviously incompatible, even if they dislike the smell of each other, even if they share nothing, even if they never went to bed together, then why not a man with a man or a woman with a woman?

<<If a man and a woman can arbitrarily declare themselves legally "married" in order to obtain certain privileges, even if they are obviously incompatible, even if they dislike the smell of each other, even if they share nothing, even if they never went to bed together, then why not a man with a man or a woman with a woman?>>

Hey, I like it.

If heterosexuals can have sham marriages why can't homosexuals have sham marriages?

Priceless!

Dear Yuyutsu,
Thanks for your explanations. 

Your view of marriage seems to be anything it all, however the people involved would want to define it. I see this type of 'anything goes' approach as a dissolution of the sacred union that marriage was intended to be. Perhaps I'm too much of an idealist.

This view is typical of the modernist who craves absolute freedom at every turn, at any cost. I don't share this view of freedom.    

Your last paragraph is especially disconcerting  You argue from the viewpoint of abuse of the system. Of course, any system can be open to abuse. But once the institution itself is destroyed, there will be no more system to abuse.

When we are free to define marriage however we care to choose, I can imagine the results: polygamy, tick, okay; same sex marriage, tick, okay; 16 year old bunked up with his 22 year old high school English teacher (yes, I watched the Rake episode on ABC last night), yep, tick, then where next?

Several ladies living in a flat, declaring themselves one big happy family so they can get a rent reduction, okay.

A netball team living together declaring themselves to be each other's co-wives, with their coach as the designated master of the harem. If it saves on petrol costs for transport on match days, and on the laundry bill, then who are we to discriminate?    

     

Dear Dan,

Perhaps my last paragraph was an exaggeration, so to clear a point, but there are many couples today who are formally married, and who do fulfil the minimum LEGAL requirements as to legally not be considered a sham-marriage, yet their lives do not resemble anything like a truly sacred union. Likewise, I personally know [heterosexual-]couples who are not formally married, yet their lives exemplify a sacred union.

Whether laws stay or change, the various activites that you mentioned occur anyway. Even if people are immoral, it is neither possible nor the goverment's duty to set them straight - how much more so when they are immoral themselves!

Nevertheless, God will eventually clear-up this mess.

You have a right to your views, but I think that as a religious person, you should care even more about freedom from secular governments, because they have the power to take away your religious rights (and some among the Labor/Greens would be delighted to do so).

Have you ever heard this saying:

"When the Nazis took the dissidents away, I did nothing because I kept quiet and it did not affect me.
When the Nazis took the Gypsies away, I did not stop them because I was not a Gypsy and it did not affect me.
When the Nazis took the Jews away, I did not stop them because I was not a Jew and it did not affect me.
Then the Nazis came to take to take ME away and there was no one left to stop them."?

So among those ticks you mentioned, I also tick: "sacred, monogamous heterosexual union, sanctified at a religious rite by a priest in church: tick, okay; celibacy: tick, okay".

Don't take your religious rights for granted - the Iranian government for example, currently presses young people to marry and have children, a celibate would find him/herself in trouble there.

I would fight just as fiercely against a government that forbids heterosexual marriages; or celibacy; or polygamy; or polyandry; or a government that denies religious rights and practices, even if not my own religion.

Dear Yuyutsu,
I have heard of that saying. I don't think it necessary to apply it here. If the government doesn't want to elevate those of same sex union to the status of marriage, that is not the same as dragging people away to their doom, as in the tale of Nazi oppression. What the gays are requesting is a redefinition of marriage.  

I can't ever see the government giving celebates marriage status either. To suggest celebates should have marriage status shows what flight of fancy we are embarking upon.  

Dear Dan,

We are fortunate indeed that the issues we face are miniature in comparison with the Nazi crimes.

"What the gays are requesting is a redefinition of marriage."

Of course I do not support this, what a joke! The government attempting to define and redefine reality? They are already in that habit and everything they say turns out the opposite anyway!

As I said, I hope the government drops the word "marriage" (and many other words) altogether from their book of laws. I do hope they make this book much leaner. But as it stands, they have ALREADY overloaded the language, so lets get it straight:

1. The government has decreed that certain people are in "Category M".
2. Being in Category M carries certain privileges.
3. The requirements for membership in category M are minimal (nothing in comparison with the requirements of marriage, for example).
4. Specifically, no religious or spiritual affiliation or belief is required in order to register for membership in category M.
5. Entry into category M is not automatic - although many people in the community fulfil its conditions, one must formally apply.
6. Membership in category M does not expire, even when requirements are no longer met, except at the explicit request of members.

The question arises then, why should only certain people be allowed to register into Category M, benefiting from its privileges, and not others?

Why for example, should a person who became celibate BEFORE attempting to register into category M be disadvantaged in relation to a person who became celibate AFTER registering? Why should the second celibate have privileges which the first celibate is denied, given that both lead a similar lifestyle?

Finally, why should such a ridiculous 'Category M' concept be listed in the book of laws in the first place?

Thanks for making that straight. 

Why should marriage be listed as a category of law? 
Because marriage is an honourable institution, and the government does well to honour it and support those who enter into such a union. The institution of marriage helps give strength and wellbeing to the community in general.

I know the PM doesn't fully understand this, but some of her colleagues are helping to guide her.

Dear Dan,

"Why should marriage be listed as a category of law?"

That is a hypothetical question - the government will never list marriage as a category of law, if for nothing else, because they cannot obtain the information whether one is married or not. Being truly married is something which one can only tell in their own heart of hearts (and quite a few deny that truth even from themselves). They can and do of course have their "Category M", for which they confiscated the word "marriage", but you wouldn't count that as anything, right?

"Because marriage is an honourable institution, and the government does well to honour it and support those who enter into such a union."

If I were to be honoured by this government, I would flee into my hole and dig my head in the sand in shame.

"The institution of marriage helps give strength and wellbeing to the community in general."

- I disagree here. It is not the INSTITUTION of marriage, but MARRIAGE itself which does that.

I stand corrected - 
It is good marriages which help make society strong, and so the reason why it benefits, even necessitates, the government to facilitate and uphold the practice of marriage. 

"the government to facilitate and uphold the practice of marriage"

- Like a gold ring in a pig's snout (Proverbs 11:22)!

Firstly they are simply unable to do it, they have no means of distinguishing a real or good marriage, because only One is said to be
"The Lord of hosts, the one who tests the righteous, who sees kidneys and heart" [Jeremiah, 20:12].

Secondly, even if they could, the stench of government will stick to marriages as well. People would say "Ah, marriage=government, that's their next trick to control us, so let's rebel, lets trick them back and have a bad marriage".

It is much better to associate good marriage with credible religious and spiritual leaders who also demonstrate a high personal example. They should be the ones to facilitate and uphold the practice of marriage.

Yuyutsu
You think laws on marriage are next to useless, and have little respect for the law makers. You view doesn't appear to be many steps away from anarchy.

Government is likely to always carry some degree of corruption due to the nature of the fallen human beings whom we elect. But this has gone away from the topic at hand.

Dear Dan,

"You think laws on marriage are next to useless"

When they come from government, not when they come from a spiritual authority - the government has no spiritual authority.

"and have little respect for the law makers. You view doesn't appear to be many steps away from anarchy"

I do not hold that any person or group has a right to rule over others against their will. God's people are meant to be their own masters, under God alone. Some may call it "anarchy", but please watch for the subtle differences. I hold that the state may only exist as a servant, not as a master. Its duty is to serve and protect its citizens (that includes protection from each other and making the necessary laws for that: I could write much about it but it gets further from the subject at hand).

"But this has gone away from the topic at hand"

I have no specific interest in supporting gay marriage, but I am alarmed whenever the government oversteps its mark. Unless we stop them now, while they deal with matters pertaining to other groups, other freedoms may fall victim next, including religious freedoms.

"Government is likely to always carry some degree of corruption due to the nature of the fallen human beings whom we elect."

And therefore we must stand guard that their powers are limited, that they can only perform their rightful duties and have no jurisdiction over our private and religious lives (unless we hurt others).

Yuyutsu,
You occasionally quote Biblical Scriptures. Should I assume you are a Christian?

Dear Dan,

"You occasionally quote Biblical Scriptures. Should I assume you are a Christian?"

I am afraid that I cannot say that: A Christian should be willing to follow in Jesus' footsteps and lay down their life on the cross for others and for God, if necessary. Sadly, I am not there yet.

I received a Jewish education. I love God and admire Jesus, but not to the extent that I deserve to be called Christian.

Yuyutsu
Thanks for your openness. 

I agree that we need to be cautious about allowing governments too much power. But setting the exact domain boundaries for governments gets us into a discussion on political philosophy perhaps beyond the scope of this question. 

It's not the role of government to prescribe systems of belief. Yet I'm happy for the government to administer some type of family law for the sake of order and a peaceful society. 

I think your concept of not 'doing harm to others' is only relative, or a bit nebulous. For example, some would say that a man who takes a second wife is doing a profound harm to his first wife. Some argume that a forty year old could marry a fourteen year old without anyone doing anyone any great harm. In both of these cases our current law wants to intervene.

Harm can be assessed in different ways and with different criteria.