Opponents of gay marriage make much of the fact that there are gays and lesbians who do not want marriage, and who don't consider it a significant issue of equality.

The gay and lesbian community is as varied in its opinions as any other, and why wouldn't it be?

To make a leap from the fact that not everybody in that community sees the need for marriage equality, to the position that therefore we should not have it, is illogical.

If the institution is available, then people have the choice. Since when did it become progressive to restrict choice on the grounds of gender?

There are plenty of heterosexuals who don't want or need marriage - does this mean those who do should not be allowed to have it either?

Briar Rose: Please calm down. Yes, there are heterosexuals against marriage too, we’ve heard from them nonstop for 50 years.

The fact is the media has portrayed the debate as a war between “evil Christians” and “angelic gays” – so take your concerns to them. Fairfax is a classic example.

By the way, if you actually listened to gay people against gay marriages you’d see that they have made hundreds of excellent arguments against it. Why are their voices being marginalised?

Leftists like you should be encouraging more voices in this debate, not prompting a culture of censorship. I feel sorry for you. Please be more tolerant and open your ears.

I don't think you read my post properly, History Buff.
The point I made was about choice.

Both heterosexuals and homosexuals make very good arguments against marriage. I see no need to silence either community on this topic, and I've long advocated a robust discussion on the nature and purpose of the institution.

As I've also said many times in these forums, the debate for and against marriage, and the debate about ssm are two different issues that ought not to be conflated.

I think that those in the homosexual community who are against marriage have some interesting and important arguments to support their case.

But they are not, I don't think, making arguments against the right to choose. They are making arguments against the institution. As they do not favour it, they aren't inclined to feel deprived of choice when they can't engage in it. Others do. These others are of equal importance.

Briar – you haven’t read their arguments with an open heart. Depriving a child of a mother and father is also discrimination. So your point is circular.

What’s more we all know that there is a strong pro-gay marriage left lesbian culture in the ABC and Fairfax and that it censors alternative opinions, in the name of “tolerance.”

When I raise this issue people they say: “The media didn’t tell us about anti-gay marriage gays.” Go figure.

What’s more some activist groups are bullying anti-gay marriage gays and this issue needs to be addressed.

In an article about the enduring institution of marriage, I especially enjoyed the line about "faking majorities (a sign of desperation)." Love is patient, eh?

Speaking of selective/fudged data.

Here’s an amusing case in the US of a church doing a poll on the issue gay marriage with the intent of taking it all the way to congress. But when they didn’t get the result they were looking for, taking the poll to congress suddenly didn’t seem like such a good idea...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33WqLT2PMcc

Oh AJ suddenly believes that because the majority of people favour 'gay' marriage we should accept it as a democracy and yet when in California the people vote against it he can't accept democracy. I think your own hypocrisy is showing through.

History Buff, There are so many ways of depriving a child of a father and a mother, that the responsibility for that cannot be laid solely at the ssm advocates door.

There are far more heterosexual single parents than there will probably ever be ss couple parents, so if your prime concern is the deprivation of children, then why aren't you mentioning that in your arguments?

Can you not consider the children who are already being raised by same sex couples? What do you want to do - remove them from people who love them and whom they love?Marginalise them because they have same sex parents?

I don't support bullying of any kind in any cause.

Actually, I don't know about the culture in the ABC and Fairfax - but I do know there have been far more anti ssm articles on this site in the last few days than pro.

My "open heart" tells me that the capacity of a human being to love nurture and cherish a child is not determined by that person's sexual preference. Likewise, it is a truly wicked assumption to make that because a couple is heterosexual and the child's biological parents, they will always, because of their sexual orientation and their marriage be the best people to raise the child. Everything we know tells us that sexual orientation, and marriage, are not indicators of who will and will not abuse children.

Show me where I said, or even implied anything like that, runner.

AJ Philips,

I take it you accept the decision of the majority of people in California that they don't want same sex 'marriage'. My apologies. You certainly imply this church group (spoken about on your link) was being unscrupulous for not supplying data that did not support their cause. If data was released regarding the unhealthy effects of sodomy then support for 'gay' marriage would plummet.

Runner you can be so irritating.

Sodomy is as common in heterosexual relationships as it is in same sex couplings.
Why do you persist in representing it as only a gay thing?

What is it about the anti-gay marriage crew
and their fixation on anal intercourse?

More sensibly, why should those gay couples
who want to marry be disallowed because some
other gay couples don't? I know lots of
heterosexual couples who prefer not to marry,
but nobody's suggesting banning heterosexual
marriage because lots of couples prefer to
remain de facto.

"we all know that there is a strong pro-gay marriage
left lesbian culture in the ABC and Fairfax and that
it censors alternative opinions"

No we don't, and there goes your credibility
out the window. You are the article's author,
aren't you 'History Buff'?

Well spotted, talisman:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11019#185278

I too had never heard of any ABC or Fairfax lesbian, conspiracy thing!

The excuse that because some gay people don't believe in marriage we should therefore not allow ANY gay person to marry is laughable!
If that is the best argument that anti-gay marriage subscribers have, then we will be attending legal gay marriages very soon.

Runner, if you keep going on about the evils of anal sex- what then is your problem with lesbian marriages?
I don't think there would be any more likelihood of sodomy in that group of women than in any other group.

Should we damn all the heterosexual couples who practice anal sex from marrying as well?

Many children in our society are already living without both parents, so I fail to see what the problem with any children being raised with gay parents will be. Not all gay couples want children either.

Should we thus only 'allow' the willingly childless, non-anal-sex-practicing, gay people to marry then?

Would that be ok Runner and AGIR?

In a democracy Suzie, if that's what the majority want then so be it.

Briar Rose

'Runner you can be so irritating.'
Thankfully those close to me don't think so most the time. I would imagine that among the hardest people to live with are angry feminist. I doubt very much that you would not be irritating yourself. Then again only those who live close to you would know that.

Suzie you ask
Should we thus only 'allow' the willingly childless, non-anal-sex-practicing, gay people to marry then?

No, why send a perverted warped message about marriage to society. We have enough dysfunction with broken homes now without letting the family unit degrade further. To allow women to marry women is as sick as the idea of men marrying men. Most lesbians I know have had failed in their relationships with men and now are trying out with women. Poor kids! Just check out how many fatherless kids are in prison.

Runner where are your Facts and evidence, for such a sweeping statement?
Your sad closeted and dictatorial view of life, is typical of those who assume a state of self delusion, that life should only be lived as they dictate. Living a life of insecurities I am sure would not pose well with your chosen "deity", and would not be happy that you abuse others in their name.

The Australian’s Christopher Pearson's words....

He adds, “Among the reasons the Greens are so keen on same-sex marriage is that they want to reduce the population and drive down national fertility. Their refusal to discriminate positively in favour of heterosexuality and uphold the distinctive value of normal marriage shows their political project yet again for what it is: a dead end.”

What rubbish! Mutiny on the Bounty I'd call it. The greens are in favour of a balanced and sustainable population for all people in Australia including Christopher ( who happens to be gay ) which now after our support, he spits back at the one's who try and help......well....Mr Pearson..what a cold thought.....but now since you have mentioned it, I just love the idea.

Population reduction is one of the biggest issues on the planet, and if the religious sheep-people have their way.........all the grass in the global paddock will chewed right off the face of the planet.

Adoption is another important factor in this equation. This has to be the number 1 priority and not to make lame and ridiculous clams that the greens are working some sort of conspiracy. There are 10 of 1000's of unwanted babies out there looking for someone to love them........and I cant see why.......since gay people worship love......this should not be encouraged to the highest level.

Well thanks Mr Pearson for opening the doors to commonsense.

The greens will be happy to take the credit for at one:)

Remember people.....There are 23 million of us right now...and if we grow more,...well..........I hope you know what the insides of a packet of sardines looks like.

Lets make a little list...again shall we...

NO Jobs
Long waiting cues
Packed public transport
No hospital beds
Water shortages
Food price hikes
Destroyed environments
Max pollution
and the list goes on.



BLUE

“History Buff, There are so many ways of depriving a child of a father and a mother, that the responsibility for that cannot be laid solely at the ssm advocates door.”
Briar: Two wrongs never make a right. The Left has experimented on children enough over the last decades. Now it is time for adults-first socialists to clean up their mess. Stop robbing boys of fathers

“Runner you can be so irritating.Sodomy is as common in heterosexual relationships as it is in same sex couplings.Why do you persist in representing it as only a gay thing?”

What rubbish. Briar Rose has probably never seen a study on anal cancer in the gay population. It is significantly higher for a reason. She just makes things up

History Buff, what is your problem with anal sex anyway? Why are you so fixated on it?

Why is what other people choose to do in the privacy of their own bedrooms any of your business, whether they're homosexual or heterosexual?

This obsession with other people's sexual activities is really unhealthy.

This obsession with other people's rear ends is pretty weird too.

I am also bemused by those who are antigay, and appear to have an unhealthy interest in what goes on in others bedrooms

Kipp writes

'I am also bemused by those who are antigay, and appear to have an unhealthy interest in what goes on in others bedrooms'

It is the preventable diseases that our doctors and nurses have to attend to that concerns me more than the perversion in others bedrooms.

Interesting stats from The Australian Bureau of Statistics, in 2009 66.9% of marriages where performed by civil celebrants; an increase from 65% in 2008.
77.4% of couples lived together before marriage, so it looks like Runners church is really losing business!!

Kipp

I would not get to excited. It is true that church attendance has fallen in many places in the Western world. You would need to be blind freddy not to see the tremendous rise in faith in other parts of the world. It will be Christ's kingdom that outlasts the perverted copy of the Roman empire that you so seem to want to copy. The book does not lie. Enjoy your short time of 'pleasure seeking' because it sure won't last forever.

<<Why is what other people choose to do in the privacy of their own bedrooms any of your business, whether they're homosexual or heterosexual?
This obsession with other people's sexual activities is really unhealthy.>>

Homosexuals define themselves by their sexual activity.
Nobody cares what people do in their own bedroom but the homosexual lobby, aided and abetted by "social justice activists", wants to call what they do in their bedrooms "marriage" and ram it down the throats of children.

Proxy says:

"social justice activists", wants to call what they do in their bedrooms "marriage" and ram it down the throats of children.

and I say *BINGO*.....that's it in a nutshell.

Mess with my children...and you mess with me!

The workers aren't necessarily against gay marriage, but are a bit over people like the ALP discussing trendy causes ahead of standing up for the workers.

One thing I find interesting about the more
prolific homophobic comments in this discussion
is that they invariably equate having sex with marriage.
Marriage may be many things, but in my experience
sex is an activity that seems to happen a lot more
outside the institution of marriage than within it.

Apparently ALGOREtc is also worried about what
"social justice advocates" do in their bedrooms,
and appears to have some kind of unsavoury fantasy
about "messing with his children". I have known one
or two people who could be described as "social justice
advocates" quite intimately, and I can assure AL that
they are far more likely to be involved in child protection
than in any kind of child abuse.

Lastly, it appears that "History Buff" is continuing
to be coy about being the article's author. I find it quite
odd that Mr Terpstra would prefer to engage with people
who comment on his article pseudonymously rather than honestly.

<< in my experience sex is an activity that seems to happen a lot more outside the institution of marriage than within it>>

You're thinking of "gay marriage" where extra-"marital" arrangements are de rigueur.

No, Proxy. I'm talking about heterosexual marriage.
In my experience sex was more frequent both before
and after it.

How can extramarital sex be "de rigueur" in gay marriage
in Australia, when gays can't marry in this country yet?
You just made that up, didn't you?

This marriage thing –

A contract between two people which gives you certain rights in law and property division if the contract is dissolved or one person dies?

This also gives any children the couple has a legitimate status in society?

There is the choice to have some religious ceremony if they choose to at “wedding” time but they can have a ceremony anyway whether legally marrying or not?

Couples of the same gender can and do raise children here, they can also adopt and foster children from birth to 18 years old. From this I gather the law has no objections to them being a parenting couple.

And I understand that some are specifically worried about their anuses and diseases associated with them but that unmarried people can get theses afflictions as well?

What is the main objection in allowing two adults the choice to legally marry?

Society has no business sanctioning reproductively unnatural relationships which artificially create children for the sole satisfaction of the participants only to deliberately forever deprive those same children of their birthright of a mother and a father.

It appears, unfortunately, that we already tolerate this practice.
This does not mean that we should give it the imprimatur of the state.

This is tantamount to society deliberately robbing children of their natural birthright.

Homosexual "marriage" is not a human right, it's an inhuman wrong.

Agreed Proxy. Robbing children of fathers seems to be a cottage industry in Australia. Feminists are creating a stolen generation.

Jewely: “What is the main objection in allowing two adults the choice to legally marry?”

Well, you don’t reward dysfunction. Then again, I understand that some people hate fathers raising children, because of psychological issues. And I wonder: Do two wrongs ever make a right? The argument seems to be, “Yeah, we stuff up kids, so let’s stuff up a few more, to fit in around the lives of adults.

HB:”Well, you don’t reward dysfunction. Then again, I understand that some people hate fathers raising children, because of psychological issues. And I wonder: Do two wrongs ever make a right? The argument seems to be, “Yeah, we stuff up kids, so let’s stuff up a few more, to fit in around the lives of adults.”

We don’t drown our retarded or crippled people at birth. We allow all people with genetically carried diseases etc to marry and breed. Our society accepts all forms of mutation, physical and mental deviations from what we consider the norm.

Why does a father raising children have any psych issues involved?

But if you are suggesting that this father issue is wrong then why aren’t you in favour of a child being raised by two fathers?

What is a child’s natural birth right?

Who is being stolen?

<<There is no monolithic 'gay' position on gay marriage - they're as divided as the rest.>>
What apparently unites them however is that they will apparently go to any length to further the homosexual agenda.
Even taking children away from their biological mother because they are deemed unsuitable.
Why are they unsuitable?
Because they no longer embrace the homosexual agenda.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article702829.ece