"To those that would seek to stop gay marriage, like Tony Abbott and his mates in the Catholic Church, it’s time to say that we will no longer be lectured by a pack of superstitious virgins."

"The second obstacle is in the form of our “dear leader” Julia Gillard, who, like many Australians, has decided that doing nothing is the path to remaining neutral - the “I’m not gay, so it’s not my problem” lot. These people need to know that doing nothing is itself a decisive and deliberate course of action."

So maybe we apply the same tolerance to gay marriage that you apply to our leaders, who are elected officials?

How's that for equality?

You might like it to be a moral obligation, but it doesn't become one just because you say so or that you have decided to be aggressive or adversarial about it.

I'm happy that we take a decisive and deliberate course of action, to gay marriage, and do nothing - I'm sick of bullies who try to use weasel words and cajoling, along with skewed push polls to force an issue that they cannot even explain the benefits of to the rest of society.

Put it to a referendum, the elected officials are a reflection of their constituency, and if you don't like their response, the only other course is referendum.

Yes, lets have a referendum, and kick this bloody topic into touch once and for all. There are more important things to be worried about for God's sake

I was never for or against gay marriage. I now think same sex marriage might be the best way to go.
As gay people will then be on a level playing field with "straight" people there will be no need for the Gay Mardi Gras (Taxpayers will save here), there will be no need for guy clubs, for that matter there will be no further need to live or play separately.
Gay people will have all the same benefits as "straight" people.

If ever there was a time to stand up for morality and true love, (Heterosexual) it is now.

We need to fight against the HATE being promoted by the Gay Rights fanatics, and their Fabian/Marcusian Labor sympathizers, and re-state for the world to hear:

"I and my house have chosen God and His way"

We are very close now to a Gay rights/Favian Socialist fuelled HATE campaign against Christians and any group which may not approve of homosexual behavior.

EXAMPLE
https://faithandthelaw.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/united-kingdom-high-court-to-decide-whether-christian-couple-can-foster/

EXAMPLE
http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/australia-news/new-south-wales-news/2010/07/17/bretheren-case-%E2%80%98has-future-implications%E2%80%99/27943

We should all take up the fight to end victimization and persecution of Christians and their beliefs, by so called 'equality' commissions and so called 'Human Rights' commissars.

The CYC case revolved around a 'phone call'... which makes me very suspicious about how it was handled by the courts. Was their any corroborating evidence? Unless an application in writing is made..all we have is 'hearsay'... he said/he said.

The GREENS are out to destroy Christianity, no question about it.
Although such anti God pogroms are never successful, they do however create a lot of harm and hurt along the way.

Remember Quintus Fabius Maximus. "The inevitability of Gradualism"

In my opinion, this whole issue comes down to the improper separation of church and state in regards to the Marriage act. While I'm no expert when it comes to law, it seems that marriage should be either a religious or a state institution, not both as it currently seems to be now. Personally other than historical reasons I can't see why the government needs to regulate the union of people as they see fit. All issues regarding to property, children etc are already regulated by other laws. My solution would be to decentralize marriage to allow churches, or any other community group decide who is allowed to marry in 'their' institution. This way (for example) a catholic church could choose who gets married (and who doesn't) through the catholic church, and the same with other groups who can be as inclusive or exclusive as they please. I am happy to hear suggestions/criticisms on this theory but lets try and keep it constructive.

Boaz, it is a dry well you are pumping here.

>>Remember Quintus Fabius Maximus. "The inevitability of Gradualism"<<

Here's your mate Glenn Beck on the topic:

"But Fabian Socialists was a society that was founded in January of 1884. The members sought to influence public opinion on socialism. But what they — what made them unique was, at the time, if you wanted to be a socialist, you needed a mass revolution. Well, they preferred the selective education — selective education. You've seen it here beginning under the Woodrow Wilson administration. It was the education of the powerful few, especially those in government and the media who could lead reforms in government. It is why our media is so screwed up. And they all think alike. Their strategy is called doctrine of inevitability of gradualism<<

Let's take a quick look under the covers.

"if you wanted to be a socialist, you needed a mass revolution."

That's completely ass-backwards.

It is not the mass revolution that makes you a socialist, it is being a socialist that makes you want mass revolution.

"Well, they preferred the selective education"

Selective education? The original Fabians (which is the group Beck is talking about) supported "workers institutes" which, as the name implies, were places for the less well-off to string together bits of knowledge, as well as see plays, read books etc. Not exactly a political hot-bed, I'm afraid. More an enlightened form of charity.

>> It was the education of the powerful few...<<

Sadly for your argument, Mr Beck, it was education for the dispossessed many. The exact opposite of what you are suggesting here.

And it is important also to bear in mind that there is absolutely nothing inevitable about gradualism.

Sorry, that's not exactly correct.

The only thing that is inevitable about gradualism, is that it is gradual. It does not actually guarantee change.

In fact, it provides far more opportunity for opposition than, say, a revolution.

But don't let that stop you pretending that it is the ultimate code-word for the downfall of civilization, Boaz.

As if that were remotely possible.

'the moral obligation of our time' should read the immoral perversion of our time.Don't you love how the social engineers twist normal for perverted and evil for good with such confidence in their language.

AlGOREisRICH and runner are right, this gay marriage BS is all about insulting Jesus and perversions. ALso right on about Maximus, Gladiator was a good movie IMOP.

James, thank you for a well thought out contribution to this debate.

I wish I could say the same of most of these posts.

Those of you who responded saying 'put it to a referendum', could you please read an article before bothering to post on it? Jees, was it too long, or did it perhaps have too many difficult words for you?

Ditto to the poster who said gay people must 'prove the benefit to society' from this change.

And Runner, your drivel is hardly worth mentioning anymore.

Sigh. Gay marriage affects about a million people in this country, who don't need to prove anything to the homophobes of this world. Discrimination doesn't get legitimised by popular opinion, but even if it did, popular opinion isn't even on the side of the homophobes anymore.

Just step aside, losers, and let Australia rejoin civilisation.

Wow. So we should listen to a discredited American activist judge? I note the emotional anti-Christian arguments too in this weird post. So because some Catholic wolves have infiltrated the church, all Catholic views must be dismissed, even when we know that boys need fathers (not two mothers). The author wouldn’t dare speak to Muslims in the same light, of course, because he is a hypocritical atheist

James

I doubt the majority would change a fundamental Australian value if another just as fair solution was advanced.

Make Civil Unions compulsory for all. Leave marriage to the churches. Marriage becomes an add on with no extra benefits except for those who value and uphold christian beliefs.

This discourse doesn't pander to swing-seat politicians. It panders to Labor Party needs to minimise the Greens votes in the traditional Labor inner-city seats.

The Labor Party are wedged by the Greens push in this issue.

It's nothing to do with anything else.

I think you'll find freedom results from democracy and our western culture has dealt with it's problems and injustices over many centuries precisely by putting democracy first and following the will of the majority. That's what has happened in all those instances you've quoted.

Lincoln used democracy to achieve freedom for a minority. The age of equality and freedom already existed, he and the citizens of the US simply supported and extended it.
Segregation in the US was ended by people voting for the parties which were willing to implement it. This extention of freedom followed the democratic process.
Equality of women and indeed historically the original process of allowing women to vote followed a democratic process.

Do you think Mandella would have been jailed in a democratic society? South Africa was a dictator Apartheid regime with little in common with western values.

Consesus it not the be all and end all of Australian politics. It is to the Labor Party who continually betray principle for politics.
Didn't Julia dump the community forums on climate change?

Your views are based on cock-eyed argument. When such misinformnation is presented to the population any proposal for Gay marriage will be defeated by a desire of the majority to stick to not only a logical and well presented case but also and to a tried and true formula that has always worked reasonably well.

That's the reason gay marriage proponents don't want democracy to decide.

Stop being so... rational, keith.

>> Leave marriage to the churches. Marriage becomes an add on with no extra benefits except for those who value and uphold christian beliefs.<<

The problem inherent in a solution such as this, is that it leaves the bigots and ranters nowhere to go.

We are already living in a society where any relatively lengthy relationship is deemed a de facto marriage for legal purposes. So if the government simply tidies these rules up a bit, then backs right away from the discussion, the marriage/no marriage bit then becomes a simple matter of religious tolerance/intolerance.

If you [insert your preferred pairing here] can find a church that will join you together "in the eyes of your God", then by all means do so.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1569248/Indian-man-marries-dog.html

And if you can't, there's no point in whingeing to the government. Your religion is, after all, your own personal choice.

As is your [insert your preferred pairing here].

The religous right are saying, same sex couples should not have any rights, that they enjoy.
Jesus was never married and spent most of his adult life with a group of MEN, and he was born by virgin birth !!
Now come on you blokes, Joseph was Jesus dad so where did the sperm come from to create Jesus? ( you did do biology at school.Yes?)
I respect that this is hard for you all, to put into any sense of comprehension of understanding.
Guess what! Hitler was a "Fruitcake" and tried to exterminate the Jews, Gypsies and Gays. He failed because in this world, which you are apart of; diversity of being is a natural part of it.

Live love and be happy, and enjoy your life.

Lol Kipp!

Even the Pope seems prepared to discuss gay sex by 'allowing' male prostitutes to wear condoms when HIV is a risk.

If the Pope can decide on changes like this for the Catholic Church, why can't the average religious person allow for gay marriage?

Mind you, I would have liked to see the Pope suggesting that female prostitutes should also be 'allowed' to insist on clients using condoms, but I guess that would be too much for one announcement!

<<Abraham Lincoln freed black Americans from slavery and in doing so ushered in a new age of equality and freedom>>
False analogy.
Race is immutable.
Sexual behaviour is mutable.
Just ask all the ex-gays, who homosexual activists love to hate because they expose the lie.

<<gay marriage affects everyone>>
Unfortunately, the author got this one correct.
Think of all the innocent children who will never receive their birthright of a mother and a father because they are artificially conceived to be raised in an unnatural environment with dysfunctional role models.
Just ask Dawn Stefanowicz, who lived the nightmare that will be foisted on these innocents.
http://www.dawnstefanowicz.com/

Furthermore anyone who dissents from the homosexual line will be persecuted, as is already being experienced in Western countries which are adopting the homosexual agenda.

Supporters of Proposition 8 in California were targeted with violence and vandalism in an intimidatory campaign by homosexual activists.

The author fails to mention that Chief US District Judge Vaughn Walker was revealed to the public as a homosexual shortly before his "judgement" was made known.
He retired shortly thereafter, having achieved his zenith of homosexual judicial activism.

<<despite the mob voting for the denigration and discrimination of 10 per cent of the population>>
Try 1% homosexual and 0.5% bisexual according to "the new Integrated Household Survey (IHS), which is the largest social report ever produced for the Office for National Statistics".
http://www.medindia.net/news/Study-Finds-One-Percent-of-UK-People-Openly-Gay-or-Lesbian-74544-1.htm#ixzz166jTHxYk

<<mob?>>
Refer to violent intimidation by homosexual mobsters in California noted above.

<<A private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples is not a proper basis for legislation.>>
Does the author have a private moral view that he is superior to Muslims who engage, or wish to engage, in polygamy?
If so, he is a hypocrite.
If not, why is he not arguing their case?

Does the author consider himself superior to adult, loving, consensual incestuous couples?
If so, on what basis.
If not, why is he not arguing their case?

<<2.3 million gay brothers and sisters>>
How can that be when there are only 480,000 in the UK?
http://www.medindia.net/news/Study-Finds-One-Percent-of-UK-People-Openly-Gay-or-Lesbian-74544-1.htm

Or is this the part where you say it doesn't matter whether it's 10% or 1%, after using the 10% lie to bolster your case?

<< Not for the sake of Gay Australians only, but for the sake of all Australians>>
Would "All Australians" include all those innocent young children of "gay marriage" who will never know a mother and a father because their birthright is trumped by homosexual activists "fundamental human right" to "marry".
It's all for the sake of the little kiddies isn't it?

Oh I don't know Proxy, I guess the children growing up in a gay household will get on at least as well as those kiddies being raised in one-parent households or those kids who are adopted, right?

I would imagine that people born homosexual who later 'decide' to deny their sexual orientation will still remain basically non-practising homosexuals.

They would basically be the same as any celibate heterosexual really,
wouldn't they?

Anyone who denies their true sexuality is lying to themselves, and to their God, who supposedly made them that way.

Hey Kipp,

you are right ... Hittler was a fruitcake but he was also a socialist fruitcake with a social engineering program.

good onya

While you say the religious right say 'same sex couples should not have any rights, that they enjoy.' and they might hold that opinion but you must remember three things:
1. It is perfectly acceptable in our society for them to hold such opinions.
2. It is the rest of us you need to convince that you should have equal rights. And most of us agree you should.
3. Marriage is a religious tradition and it is up to you to convince everybody that homosexuals should be able to marry in that tradition. That I think you'll find very difficult.

The perfect solution is to ensure equality by making Civil Unions compulsorty for everyone. Homosexuality is also seen by the religions as an abomination so changing what is religious tradition to suit homosexuals isn't the answer ... and likely impossible.

Anyway if you were to be successful do you think the churches would simply roll over?

No of course they won't.

The churches would likely rename marriage as Christian Marriage and homosexuals would still be excluded from that sacrament. ie nothing would change.

Jeez you blokes really do need to put in a bit of thought as so far I've just seen abuse, simplicity and stupidity put forward by the homosexual lobby.

Our society now has a completely overblown sense of entitlement, Keith, I agree with you.

For some reason they seem to find abuse and blame reasonable excuses for their own behavior - so they want something from the rest of Australia. They feel they are entitled to it, yet if anyone disagrees with them or questions it, it's abuse and spite.

Which makes people like me, feel like doing absolutely nothing for their cause and even dig in a bit harder to maintaining the status quo.

To the poster who is sarcastic about people asking for a referendum, what is it in the article that refers to it? Or are the words beyond you? Get over people, Australians, disagreeing with you, or having a difference of opinion.

<<children growing up in a gay household will get on at least as well as those kiddies being raised in one-parent households or those kids who are adopted, right?>>
"fatherless children are:
- 5 times more likely to commit suicide;
- 32 times more likely to run away;
- 20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders;
- 14 times more likely to commit rape;
- 9 times more likely to drop out of high school;
- 10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances;
- 9 times more likely to end up in a mental institution;
- 20 times more likely to end up in prison."
http://www.quebecoislibre.org/000610-9.htm
Is the bar we should be aiming at for our children?
There will always be children who don't have both parents through circumstances.
This is vastly different to society giving its imprimatur to homosexual arrangements whereby children are deliberately brought into a situation where they are denied their natural birthright of a mother and a father...
"We the state declare that you will never know either your mother or your father and we deny that it is your birthright to have the opportunity to know a mother and a father."
It is not the business of the state to sanction such arrangements.
It is the business of the state to try to ensure the best possible outcome for any child and help to ameliorate the situation where this is not possible.

<<I would imagine that people born homosexual who later 'decide' to deny their sexual orientation will still remain basically non-practising homosexuals."
There is no evidence that people are "born homosexual".
Why not read up on ex-homosexuals who gave up the lifestyle?
Linda Jernigan
Charlene Coltrane
Michael Glatze
Jackie Clune
Janet Boynes

<<Anyone who denies their true sexuality is lying to themselves, and to their God, who supposedly made them that way.>>
Are incestuous couples made that way by their god?
Sexual behaviour is a behaviour.
Homosexual behaviour is not imprinted in anybody's DNA.

Proxy <"Are incestuous couples made that way by their god?"

Yes. Aren't all humans supposed to be made in the image of their God?
How did Adam and Eve's children go on to have their kids?

"Sexual behaviour is a behaviour."

Yes of course it is! I was talking about sexuality Proxy- there's a difference. Look it up.

"Homosexual behaviour is not imprinted in anybody's DNA."

Really Proxy? Where did you read that?
The Christian Chronicle?
The Ku Klux Klan Periodical?

As for your list of supposed 'reformed' homosexuals...anyone mad enough to give up their true sexual self for a religion or God, deserves the sad life they will lead- living a lie.

I have spoken to many Gay people who have tried hard to deny their homosexuality- sometimes for years- before finally just accepting how they were made, and then were much happier living the life they were born to.

Do you think anyone would deliberately CHOOSE to be homosexual?
They are often ostracized, laughed at and bashed just for being 'different'.

They are doomed to a life of hate and bigotry by people like yourself.

I have known several children as young as three, where friends and relatives have KNOWN those children are 'different' already- even before they are old enough to know anything about sex.

They all 'came out' as homosexual in their late teens.
All had both parents at home, and most were living in so-called 'good Christian' homes.
How do you account for that Proxy?

"False analogy.
Race is immutable.
Sexual behaviour is mutable.
Just ask all the ex-gays, who homosexual activists love to hate because they expose the lie."
-Proxy

Or just ask a leprechaun, djinni or extra-terrestial: they're much easier to find than ex-gays.

You're quite right that sexual behaviour is mutable, Proxy. For example, I don't have to conduct myself in the solo symphony as often as I do (I just happen to enjoy it). This behaviour is mutable, as is all behaviour. But sexual orientation is not sexual behaviour, and it is immutable. Believe me, I've tried to mute it. I spent a full hour the other moring trying my hardest to stop being heterosexual, and I still fancy women. And yes, I know this is anecdotal evidence. As I recall, so is all of yours.

"Furthermore anyone who dissents from the homosexual line will be persecuted, as is already being experienced in Western countries which are adopting the homosexual agenda."
-Proxy

ROFLMAO. Huzzah! for paranoiacs, they're ever so amusing.

"There is no evidence that people are "born homosexual"."
-Proxy

This is a lie. There is a good deal of evidence that people are born homosexual, e.g. Bailey, J.M. and Pillard, R.C. (1995). Genetics of human sexual orientation. Annual Review of Sex Research 6: 126-50.

"Sexual behaviour is a behaviour.
Homosexual behaviour is not imprinted in anybody's DNA."
-Proxy

A fair point. Just 'coz you're gay doesn't mean you have to behave that way - there is nothing that stops a homosexual living a life of celibacy. But who in their right mind wants to lead a life of celibacy, aside from some religious folk? Nobody, that's who. Sex is fun, Proxy, and trying to convince folk that they shouldn't have fun just by bullying them is unlikely to prove a fruitful strategy.

Keith,

<<The churches would likely rename marriage as Christian Marriage and homosexuals would still be excluded from that sacrament. ie nothing would change.>>

The issue of gay marriage is not about being like Christians, it's about having the same legal rights and recognition as any other committed couple.

AJ,

Didn't you read all my comments?

Having the same legal rights and recognition could be achieved if we made
'...Civil Unions compulsory for all. Leave marriage to the churches. Marriage becomes an add on with no extra benefits except for those who value and uphold christian beliefs.'

But it seems to me the homosexual lobby want more than equality of legal rights and recognition ...I think they want the churches to endorse their lifestyles. An impossibility because the churches opine that lifestyle to be an abomination.

It seems to me the homosexual lobby wants to force change to the churches opinion. I don't think that at all realistic unless we, as a community, decide to outlaw churches from forming their own moral codes. And that's just plain idiotic.

"Civil Unions compulsory for all. Leave marriage to the churches. Marriage becomes an add on with no extra benefits except for those who value and uphold christian beliefs."
-keith

I mostly agree with you keith. Mostly. 'Coz I'm an atheist, and I don't want aught to do with any church, but some day I hope to ask the right woman to marry me. NB: 'marry me', not 'civil union me'. It just doesn't have quite the same ring to it (no pun intended).

It isn't just about the same legal rights, no matter what some folk claim - it's about full equal rights. Including the ones that don't get written up in statute books. Such as the right not to be bullied just for being who they are, and the right to get married, and the right to be left alone to get on with their lives in peace - a right that far too many people take for granted. Yeah, I know it's a tall order - but I think there is enough decency within mankind to fill it.

"I think they want the churches to endorse their lifestyles. An impossibility because the churches opine that lifestyle to be an abomination."
-keith

I don't think they want the church to endorse their lifestyle. I don't think they want the churches opining their lifestyle to be an abomination (I wouldn't take kindly to such opining and I doubt you would either). I think they want the churches to mind their own damn business, and stay the [expletive deleted] out of their personal lives unless invited in.

"It seems to me the homosexual lobby wants to force change to the churches opinion."
-keith

It seems to me that the homosexual lobby is quite happy for the churches to have their own opinion, they're just none too keen on having it forced down their throat. Can you really blame them?

<< Sex is fun, Proxy, and trying to convince folk that they shouldn't have fun just by bullying them is unlikely to prove a fruitful strategy.>>
Nobody is "trying to convince folk that they shouldn't have fun".
Just trying to stop them from hijacking marriage.
By the way, it's difficult to think of a less "fruitful strategy" than homosexual "marriage".

"Nobody is "trying to convince folk that they shouldn't have fun".
Just trying to stop them from hijacking marriage."
-Proxy

Really? 'Coz that's definitely not the impression I get from all those comments you make about penises and anuses. So pull the other one, mister - it's got bells on it.

If you were just worried about gay marriage, you'd just argue about gay marriage, and leave gay sex where it belongs: as an irrelevant side issue. But whenever the debate fares badly for you, you just can't help yourself from running back to your statistics about anal sex and STD's. By the way, many heterosexual couples have anal sex.

hi riz ,

and therein lies the crux. Would you try to force your atheist views onto the churches?

How do you think the churches would react if you sauntered up to the local mnister/priest/preacher and said, hey listen marry me to my partner because it makes us feel good and the idea of marriage has a good ring to it but don't expect us to adhere to your values and ideas because we 'don't want aught to do with you'?

I giggled as I wrote that ... I hope you do too. I think you'll get my point.

I haven't seen the churches ram anything down anybody's throat recently. Can you cite an example please?

And I do think it's ok for the churches to hold their opinions just as I think it is ok the homosexual lobby to hold theirs.

I mostly disagree with both but am particularly ambivalent towards religions

<<all those comments you make about penises and anuses>>
Take some words of comfort from your bedfellow who refers to the same but in a child-like form that is perhap more palatable to you:
"Unfortunately no amount of eloquence will relieve some people’s anxieties about willies and botties."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11169#188532

<By the way, many heterosexual couples have anal sex>>
Anal sex is not the sine qua non of heterosex as it is for homosex.

If <<many heterosexual couples have anal sex>> and anal sex is a vector for HIV/AID's, why are homosexuals 40-80 times more likely to contract the disease (along with many other STD's)?

"How do you think the churches would react if you sauntered up to the local mnister/priest/preacher and said, hey listen marry me to my partner because it makes us feel good and the idea of marriage has a good ring to it but don't expect us to adhere to your values and ideas because we 'don't want aught to do with you'?

I giggled as I wrote that ... I hope you do too. I think you'll get my point."
-keith

Your point seems to be that you have to be religious to get married. But I don't see why it has to be that way - if I get married, I have the option of a civil celebrant, a nice building that isn't a church, maybe an outdoor wedding, and no mention whatsoever of Flying Spaghetti Monster in the ceremony. And it would still be considered a marriage - except under your proposal, where marriage becomes the sole priviledge of religious folk.

Where's the harm in letting gay people call their 'thing which is legally identical to heterosexual marriage' whatever they want to call it? Where is the harm in that? They're only words, and I hardly think that FSM is going to reach out his noodly appendages and cast folk into the fiery pit if we let gay people get married and call it a marriage, but spare us if we let get them married but only call it a civil union.

"Unfortunately no amount of eloquence will relieve some people’s anxieties about willies and botties."
-Woulfe

Umm, you do realise that that comment was referring to yourself, don't you? Amazing - I have never met anybody so slow as to not realise when somebody is so obviously taking the piss out of them. For the record, I have no problem with using correct language, indeed I welcome it. Although your childish attempt to re-phrase the conversation in terms of 'willies and botties' certainly suggests you have a problem discussing sexual matters in a mature fashion.

"Anal sex is not the sine qua non of heterosex as it is for homosex."
-Proxy

It's not the sine qua non of homosex either, Proxy. If you really are so unimaginative as to believe that intercourse is the be all and end all of sex, then I pity the poor women who have had to suffer through your doubtless lacklustre performances.

"If <<many heterosexual couples have anal sex>> and anal sex is a vector for HIV/AID's, why are homosexuals 40-80 times more likely to contract the disease (along with many other STD's)?"
-Proxy

An excellent question that I don't the answer to, but by your own reasoning it can't be the anal intercourse - if it was, all those heterosexual buggers would be dropping like flies, but they're not.

Discussion question (above):
<< why are homosexuals 40-80 times more likely to contract HIV/AID's along with many other STD's)?>>

Learned progressive response (above):
<<An excellent question that I don't (have) the answer to>>

The mind boggles!

Here are some clues:
Willies and botties in frequent, random contact.
Some are campaigning to call it marriage.

Riz
My point is about the difference in civil marriages/unions to christian marriages.
NB I'd happily use the term civil marriage to diferentiate between them and christian marriage. I'd expect both to carry the same legal rights. Can and do you? Do you expect Christian marriage and civil marriage to be the same?

Marriage traditionally has been the provence of the churches. A religious marriage has a status that carries with it the belief and adherence of the participants in the values of the church. And that cannot ever be changed.

Secondly it seemed to me that you, originally, expected the churches to accept you and your views and perform their ceromenies for you to give you a nice feeling.

Now that you have since raised the issue of civil marriage (You initially responded to my views on religious marriage not civil marriage) I think it is fine for you to have a civil ceremony and call it a civil marriage and indeed for homosexual couples to do the same. But I think, and most would agree, that civil marriage is merely no more than a civil union and it doesn't carry with it the same depth of belief and adherence to a christian morality as a church conducted christian marriage.

Fot that reason I think marriage should continue be the preserve of the churches and that civil law recognise such traditional, and till now, undisputed difference.

And the simplest way to do that is to use the terms 'civil union' and 'marriage'. Now you might see more clearly why the churches might just switch from using the term marriage to christian marriage. It simply re-inforces and protects their original values, as was once carried in the original term 'marriage'.

So as I said, to ensure equality, simply make civil unions compulsory for all and then don't try to corrupt the traditional idea of the churches christian marriage.

BTW you haven't shown me how the religions are trying to ram their views down anybody's throat.

Do you have a fixation with spaghetti, homosexual sex, fiery pits and noodly appendages? :-)

Isn't there a lot of nonsense being bandied about re the issue of gay marriage?
Some people seem to think that it's only Christians who marry and that the Christian churches and their adherents therefore are entitled to impose their values on the rest of us.
What rubbish. Most people who marry these days do so via a celebrant and don't go anywhere near a church.
If a homosexual couple want to marry, how can it possibly hurt anybody else?

The push for the legalisation of gay marriage is simply another step in removing anachronistic discrimination against homosexuals in Australian society.
If John Howard hadn't changed the Marriage Act in an act of State prudery we probably wouldn't need to have this debate.
If churches are bigoted enough to refuse to marry gay people that is their prerogative.
However, why can't gays marry in civil ceremonies, like most of the rest of us?

"Willies and botties in frequent, random contact."
-Proxy

"but by your own reasoning it can't be the anal intercourse - if it was, all those heterosexual buggers would be dropping like flies, but they're not."
-Me

Are you just going to ignore this point because you don't have the answer to it?

"Some are campaigning to call it marriage."
-Proxy

No we're bloody not - if folk start calling gay casual sex and gay marriage, it's possible they might make the same mistake with straight casual sex, and I might suddenly find myself married to somebody I only wanted to shag. Marriage actually has very little to do with sex, as I'm sure many married men can tell you.

"NB I'd happily use the term civil marriage to diferentiate between them and christian marriage. I'd expect both to carry the same legal rights. Can and do you? Do you expect Christian marriage and civil marriage to be the same?"
-keith

Fair points and well made. As long as we can all get married, I don't care what the Christians get up to in the privacy of their own churches - their quaint belief in undead Jewish magicians is not my concern.

"Marriage traditionally has been the provence of the churches."
-keith

Yes, and it used to be traditional to keep black people as slaves. Tradition alone is a poor reason for doing anything.

"Now you might see more clearly why the churches might just switch from using the term marriage to christian marriage. It simply re-inforces and protects their original values, as was once carried in the original term 'marriage'."
-keith

Well, I see more clearly why the Christian churches might switch from using the term marriage to Christian marriage, but I can't see that idea going down too well with Buddhists, Confucianists, Druids, Flatnoses, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Pagans, Satanists, Sikhs, Taoists, Wiccans, Zoroastrians et. al. Maybe 'twould be best if everybody just got married, and then those who feel strongly about their faith can attach their religion as a prefix, e.g. 'Buddhist marriage'. That should keep everybody happy, right?

<<but by your own reasoning it can't be the anal intercourse - if it was, all those heterosexual buggers would be dropping like flies, but they're not. Are you just going to ignore this point because you don't have the answer to it?>>

OK.
I concede your point in view of the overwhelming depth of evidence you bring to your argument.
It can't have anything to do with "willies and botties in frequent, random contact".
It must be homophobes putting something in the water at the gay bath houses.
Or maybe they're disguising themselves as pharmacy assistants and pricking holes in condoms when homosexuals pay for them at the counter.
Or maybe those cunning, evil haters are infecting the glory holes at gay beats.
You're right, it can't possibly be their sexual practices.
You win.

To the christian bigots in this forum:

Jesus never said anything about homosexuality so don't put words in his mouth. Talk about arrogance, telling us what your god thinks and wants.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure he said a whole swag of stuff about all people being treated equally though. If you believed he is the son of your god, you would consider following his teachings. But you don't, because you are hypocrites who base your actions on ignorance, prejudice and hatred.. Your church has seriously let you down in this regard.

And show me evidence that children need a mother and a father, other than your own 'hunches' (i.e. uninformed guesses) which you spout as fact to form the basis of your argument. I know plenty of good, successful and happy people who grew up without one or the other. I'm sure you do too.

Besides, and I'll say it again, legally recognising gay marriage will make no difference to laws and practices related to adoption etc. So it's a moot point anyway.

(PS not all christians are bigots, just the ones I'm addressing)

Jeez Riz,

You forgot the gays! You forgot homosexual marriage!
And what about the irreligious ... like me?

Now does that indicate you are a closet blind or a closet forgetful bigot?

:-) I think we've reached a broad agreement.

Hey Trashman,

what about Rix's lists of other religious? Why aren't you including them as bigots too? Most of them don't include same sex marriage. Why don't you lump them in with the christian bigots? Are you showing prejudice?

There seems to be only the Christian ones here in this forum claiming authority over morality.

Once again, only a small percentage of Christians are overtly bigoted. My comments are for those in this forum who fit that description.

"You forgot the gays! You forgot homosexual marriage!"
-keith

How silly of me. Although given that I consistently argue in favour of gay marriage, I figured you'd take it as read that I think they have as much right to marry as straight folk.

"And what about the irreligious ... like me?"
-keith

I understand the general consensus is an unpleasant afterlife, but you can't believe everything you hear.

Or were you talking about marriage rights? Of course the irreligious should enjoy the same marriage rights, indeed all the same rights, as the religious. And I rather would have thought that this point would be self-apparent to, well, everybody but crazy theocratic zealots.
:-)

<<Gay marriage - the moral obligation of our time>>

Is it a moral obligation to remove children from former-lesbian mothers who determine that their children are better raised in a normal environment?

Who would have thought that the decriminalisation of homosexuality would ultimately lead to the criminalisation of heterosexual parenting where it conflicts with the relentless homosexual agenda?