But homosexuality IS the norm. Some level of homosexual activity is a normal part of life for a large number of mammalian (and other) species, including most of our simian relatives. The survival of the species does not require EVERY member of the species to produce offspring through contact with another member of the opposite sex -- if it did our society would look very different. And since large numbers of other mammals are born, live and die without producing offspring, universal reproduction is no more 'natural' than universal heterosexuality.

So any argument based on the notion that heterosexuality is somehow 'natural', and homosexuality is not, falls at the first hurdle. On the contrary, it is bigotry, disgust and fear of homosexuality which is the unnatural burden placed on our species by our history -- and especially, of course, by our choice of Invisible Friend.

Let's see if I've got this correct. The rational argument against same-sex marriage is…

The vital role of male-female gamete union is symbolised by a culturally sacred male-female partnership described by the word marriage. Further, that to apply this single word – marriage – to a same-sex partnership would strip "its deep meaning as a symbol…" and make "meaningless the rite of marriage as a female/male interrelationship…"

Even though "heterosexuality is so important to our survival, so fundamental to the continuation of the species, that we have an ingrained sense that marriage… should not be tampered with" it is apparently so fragile an institution that it would be made "meaningless" if the term included non-male/female unions.

Well, that's okay then – just so long as the argument for exclusionary treatment is Rational!

Ian Robinson

Using your logic and extrapolating to its conclusion; heterosexual marriages that do not result in offspring should be annulled.

You may not be religious but you are using the same argument as used by such as George Pell et al.

Marriage is all about procreation - utter bollocks!

The rise in gay numbers, could be natures way of saying , the boat is full. I mean, any developing or struggling species dont have time to screw about, and this could be a sign that the nature-world-laws-that governs all, maybe an indicator......of humans having hit the top as far as the ladder of evolution is concerned and also, as gay populations grows, the number of new-borns goes down. ( Thats always a good thing ;) However, if the number of gay people were to substantially over-ride our normal growth rates, there's only one word left.........EXTINCTION!

What have we humans done to our-selves.

leap

"Freedom is not the ability to become like other people, freedom is the ability to become more fully yourself! Isn’t this what “Gay Pride” means. There is no pride in making believe you are just like everyone else."

How can one become more "fully yourself" if certain rights only apply to those considered 'normal'.

Heterosexuals have choices, whether it be to procreate, get married or live like a hermit. A homosexual is not able to get married in our modern democratic society. Something is amiss.

The freedom of choice is removed based on a narrow perspective or definition of marriage. For many people, marriage is about commitment as well as any traditional model in which to raise a family. In fact the latter is passe, as many people create families without the need for a marriage certificate.

There is no secular case against same-sex marriage unless marriage is viewed only through the narrow perspective of procreation and there is no valid evolutionary or survival mechanism that mounts a strong case to exclude gays. People have been procreating outside of the marriage model for centuries. One is not connected to the other, only via an out-dated human construct that is discriminatory.

What harm can gay marriage do to the institution of marriage? That is the question? None as far as I can see. It just adds another dimension to shared love and commitment whether children are involved or not.

As the posts above indicate, the so-called rationalist argument has so many factual and logical flaws it resembles a leaky rust bucket.

What this article reveals to me, is the author's thin vaneer of bias for long standing and imposed religious authodox 'hetro only' traditions, established since the persecution of homosexual unions by religious zealots around 2,000 years ago.

Before then, when pagans and their empathy with nature dominated the world, humanity had a less filtered view about the exclusivity of marriage unions.

In an over populated world, perhaps the rational public policy position should be to provide incentives and support to every shade of marriage union that does not pro-create instead of the bonus that deluded politians bestow on those who would breed more homo sapiens.

Let's not forget that many homosexuals can and do procreate!

I still don't see how two women, or two men deciding to live and sleep together can possibly affect anyone else, secular or not.

As an Australian heterosexual who spent 10 of his formative years in another culture that is non-homophobic, I find this article amazing but not surprising. The 'logic' used by the writer to reach his incoherent conclusion appears, to me, to do the Rationalist Society of Australia a disservice.

EbenezerCooke I was thinking the same thing. AS a secularist myself and a lover of science he hasn't made me want to join his little group to help out.

I really don't understand what the problem here is why should homosexual pairing been seen as less valid then hetro? My wife and i don't have kids and don't want kids does that mean our marriage has less value then one that does?

Obviously in a roundabout way and not biologically with their same sex partners, Suze!

Jon J.
Robinson writes: "...we should thank whatever evolutionary forces made it a fact that it is normal that a percentage of the population at any one time will be drawn to same-sex rather than heterosexual unions. Homosexuality is normal, but it is not the norm ..."

How is this "any argument based on the notion that heterosexuality is somehow 'natural', and homosexuality is not .." as you state? Did you actually read the article?

I'm with the Author. I want to see same sex couples enjoy the same rights as their hetero counterparts through legislation that conveys legal protection and recognition of their partnerships. However I also believe 'marriage' is the domain of the heterosexual world. Plus there is that "We are different! Vive la difference!" factor in the more vocal Gay Pride ranks. So why the urge to be pretend straights? A bit of having one's cake and eating it too?

None of my homosexual friends are interested but that may reflect their ages and stages - all late middle aged or older, settled and don't see the need. (As says old mate Graham, recently turned 80, "OMG! What is it with queers these days?)

In the scheme of things it is not likely to mean the end of civilisation as we know it if same sex marriage is legalised but I doubt there will be a single benefit to society either. If anyone can put foward convincing argument as to how it would, please surprise me.

"in a non-religious sense, it is sacred; that is to say, heterosexuality is so important to our survival, so fundamental to the continuation of the species"

According to dictionary.com, "sacred" means:

–adjective
1. devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; consecrated.
2. entitled to veneration or religious respect by association with divinity or divine things; holy.
3. pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to secular or profane): sacred music; sacred books.

What's so sacred about the continuation of the human species? Isn't humanism but an attempt at a new religion?

DM

>> Obviously in a roundabout way and not biologically with their same sex partners, Suze! <<

As Suze is a nurse, I posit she is way ahead of you on matters biological.

>> In the scheme of things it is not likely to mean the end of civilisation as we know it if same sex marriage is legalised but I doubt there will be a single benefit to society either. If anyone can put foward convincing argument as to how it would, please surprise me. <<

Gay marriage benefits the world as much as heterosexual marriage does - which is open to interpretation.

My take on it is that legalising gay marriage means one less nasty bit of discrimination against a group of people.

Great article – compassionate but rational. I was influenced by “The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage” by Adam Kolasinski (another excellent essay).

http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

It seems that some of us haven't evolved very far. I remember being very puzzled when I was told that when a Roman Catholic married a person of another religion the children were always brought up Catholic and their marriage was considered a "mixed marriage." We even had a priest who refused to officiate at interfaith marriages.
I could not understand why religion carefully nurtured divisiveness.

As for same-sex marriage? What business is it of anyone as to who marries whom? Marriage is such a personal commitment - and it should only concern the people involved (as long as it damages nobody else).
It's a matter of personal choice and should remain so. How dare anybody tell us who we should sleep with, who we are to marry, what we do with our bodies, who can have children and how. And we should all be concerned that in a country where state and church are separate there are still antiquated laws that place the church first and people second. We can not allow politicians whose integrity and roles are compromised by their religious positions to be in control of our lives.

Jon J: It is odd that gay activists are trying to mirror middleclass heterosexuals. Perhaps that’s a form of self-hatred too?

Dear Lexi,

"How dare anybody tell us who we should sleep with, who we are to marry, what we do with our bodies, who can have children and how"

Hear, Hear - so far so good.

"What business is it of anyone as to who marries whom?"

It is indeed no one else's business - so why then do people go and ask the state to bless their marriages? why don't people simply get married and not even inform the state/government/politicians about that fact?!

Surely if you ask the devil for his services, he may at his pleasure oblige, refuse, or place conditions. Better don't ask!

Parenting a child is only something hetro people can (?) do but we want gays around to enrich our children’s lives as long as they keep the one back at home in the closet before and after death?

Maybe we could “celebrate” them by not telling them who they are and what they want let alone why they want it or what they believe in.

It’s one hell of a way to show love and respect for someone Ian.

I agree with your post Yuyutsu.

It is agreed that religious institutions are exclusive in nature. If you do not believe/follow their rules then you are not 'one of them'. I'm fine with that.

What I'm not fine with is the fact that they then claim to place these rules on people in general society. This is done by allowing marriage to become a state institution, while still claiming moral ownership. Their rules apply to all, but are owned by a few.

Thus, we need to make a decision. Either marriage is a state institution, and can be changed/evolve with public opinion as normal laws do, or it is a religious institution, and has no place as a law in our secular society. If we decide about this question (and I'm happy either way) then marriage can either be opened up to all, without religious influence, or the marriage act can be repealed and churches, mosques, synagogues can decide who they do or don't marry. I'm open to debate regarding this argument, but I'm yet to hear any one else's opinion one way or the other.

Dear Ammonite - I may be a step ahead of Suze in matters medical or biological but I'm sure she agrees that 2 men don't make a baby nor 2 women.

One of the 'Parents' in a same sex household with children is not going to be a biological one

“One of the 'Parents' in a same sex household with children is not going to be a biological one.”

Nice one Sherlock. :P

Suze said: “Let's not forget that many homosexuals can and do procreate!”

Can’t fault the comment like Ammo said Suze does seem to know what she's talking about.

The law doesn’t have a problem with same sex adoptions or same sex fostering long term though or gay parents raising half biological child/ren. Or as Ian would call it “pretending” for 18 years.

Yuyu:”why don't people simply get married and not even inform the state/government/politicians about that fact?!”

Good point, a registry office should just register what they are told to.

What about people who have legally married (or entered a civil union) overseas? Is it void here?

Woo hoo! Is it??

DM

Did you read my post? I said:

>> As Suze is a nurse, I posit she is way ahead of you on matters biological. <<

As in Suze knows a lot more about biology than you. Yet somehow you construe this to mean:

>> Dear Ammonite - I may be a step ahead of Suze in matters medical or biological... <<

I think you may need to clarify the meaning of 'ahead' - as in further advanced, more knowledgeable. Therefore, unless you too are a medical professional - Suze remains more aware of the basics of human reproduction than you.

And she would agree that two humans (this does not applies to other earthly life-forms such as snails) of the same gender cannot create a baby without medical help.

WTF all this has to do with discriminating against gay marriage, is irrelevant, apart from revealing your abilities of comprehension.

Cheers.

"How dare anybody tell us who we should sleep with, who we are to marry, what we do with our bodies, who can have children and how." Where does the author even hint at wanting to tell anybody who they should sleep with etc? Where does he argue against homosexuals being allowed to commit themselves to each other just as homosexuals spouses do?

From the first post, supporters of homosexual marriage start shooting down arguments that the author did not make. Is that because it’s easier to refute what he didn’t say than what he did? Jon J opens with , “But homosexuality IS the norm.’ No it isn’t, and Jon J’s confusion is illustrated in his own next sentence, “Some level of homosexual activity is a normal part of life for a large number of mammalian (and other) species.” Of course it is, but being normal doesn’t make something the norm. To be the norm, a behaviour has to be the behaviour of the majority. Left handedness is normal but it is not the norm.

“So any argument based on the notion that heterosexuality is somehow 'natural', and homosexuality is not, falls at the first hurdle.” It would, too, but who makes that argument? OK, some probably do, but that argument is not only not made in this article, it is scrupulously avoided.

The argument for many has got nothing to do with gay rights, which are uncontested. It has got to do with whether the meaning of a single word should be changed when the change not only seems unnecessary but would discomfit a greater proportion of the population than it would soothe.

If marriage means a union between the two sexes, then why not have another word for a union of two same sexes. In fact there could be different words to mean a females union and another for a males union.

Surely there are wordsmiths that would love to invent a couple of new words. They could still have their vows of commitment and a ceremony if they wish, but it be know by different words.

They could be known by the one surname, as do hetro marriages.

Everyone happy.

No Banjo!

:) Thing is what are we going to call a transsexual lesbian who is marrying a hermaphrodite?

I started working out possible combinations and got lost. So best we have one name for all unions.

"No Banjo!

:) Thing is what are we going to call a transsexual lesbian who is marrying a hermaphrodite?

I started working out possible combinations and got lost. So best we have one name for all unions.Posted by Jewely, Friday, 29 April 2011 2:17:57 PM"

How about 'confused'?

“I still don't see how two women, or two men deciding to live and sleep together can possibly affect anyone else, secular or not.”

LOL: Is that the best cliché you can come up with suzeonline? Suggestion: read the article again and calmly. Where in the piece does the gentleman say women can’t sleep together?

It isn’t about sleeping together it’s about redefining words.
Many gays are opposed to gay "marriage" to for this very reason.
In Canada, gay "marriage" has opened the door to polygamy court cases and therefore sexism and gender imbalances. So this is just creating more divisions.

“As for same-sex marriage? What business is it of anyone as to who marries whom?”

Lexi:Where same-sex marriage has been introduced Christian charities have been forced to shut down. So it does hurt the community if you have politically-incorrect eyes to see.

Besides we have enough fatherless families in street gangs and jails. So let’s just admit that the sexual revolution hurts some people very much. Let’s not pretend it doesn’t.

And, why bless two women who intentionally seek to rob a boy of his father? Unless, of course, you really have it in for men. Try seeing it from the perspective of innocent children for once.

Good question, Jewely.

>>Thing is what are we going to call a transsexual lesbian who is marrying a hermaphrodite?<<

I settled for "adventurous".

What puzzles me though is that the "secular case against same-sex marriage" as depicted in the article sounds an awful lot like "the religious case against same-sex marriage".

It even has the "some of my best friends are gay" smokescreen that so many religious objectors use, the old "I'm not homophobic, but..." routine.

"Marriage celebrates the male-female bond, which is worth celebrating, but..."

Why could the writer not bring himself to say "and..." instead of "but...", I wonder.

"“Some level of homosexual activity is a normal part of life for a large number of mammalian (and other) species.” Of course it is, but being normal doesn’t make something the norm. To be the norm, a behaviour has to be the behaviour of the majority. Left handedness is normal but it is not the norm."

If (say) it is normal for 10% of sex acts within a species to take place between individuals of the same sex, then a ratio of one homosexual sex act to 9 heterosexual sex acts is the norm for that species. It is the ratio that is the norm, not the activity.

What is the 'norm' for the human species? We don't know, because our cultures have been so infected and distorted by religion and other ideologies that we have no way to tell. The best we can do is look to our nearest biological relatives; and most of them appear to have happy and guilt-free sex with any partner they fancy, with no social repercussions.

simply put marriage was God's idea not man's. Same sex unions will never have God's blessing despite some clerics in robes speaking lies over ceremonies. The same clerics usually deny the resurrection, deny judgement, deny the deity of Christ. For anyone with an ounce of spirituallity we know who they represent and certainly ain't Christ.

Any marriage between any two people is not the same. However, to legislate based on gender is discrimination.

Ian Robinson's sole reason for referring to his godfather is to try and show that he is not biased against gays, but his attempt to define marriage is far from rational, and more on prejudice. That he feels it celebrates a heterosexual union, does not mean that it should.

You don't have to be religious to be bigoted.

Nunner said....."simply put marriage was God's idea not man's." Oh YEAH! when did you have a chat with him last:) Did he have a cup of tea, what was he wearing.........Nunner! Your just the best lol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atTSwau9fwM&feature=related

And this is all you are Runner...Just an angry religious person.

LEAP

Oh and this one,s my favourite....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BaGHKe5oi0&feature=related ..Runner, you do realise the bible was made by man, dont you? You know, I thought all humans were born free! but not if religion has any-thing to do with it, hey runner:)

Yes! lets all suppress whats not yours:)

Yawn!....now! where was I?....Oh yes......equal-rights all.

NEXT!

LEAP

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEt20PgKmcU&feature=related

This shows clearly whats in the bible....word for word:)

enjoy.

Gay rights Australia.

LEAP

BPT:“Lexi:Where same-sex marriage has been introduced Christian charities have been forced to shut down. So it does hurt the community if you have politically-incorrect eyes to see.”

They have – why – and how can I get some to shut down because many are nothing but misery for profit leaches on society hiding under a shroud of secrecy and disgusting govt funded discrimination. Sorry BPT it’s just good for me to let that one out now and again.

Pericles:”It even has the "some of my best friends are gay" smokescreen that so many religious objectors use, the old "I'm not homophobic, but..." routine.”

Hey I liked that bit – especially when it turned out to be like the mothers uncle. Not too close not too far away. Seemed almost respectable since he wasn’t reported to be a sexually active gay as the “late companion” had not been around in Ian’s lifetime. The story could almost make it to the Disney Channel.

Yes “adventurous” and “confused” both fit I guess Is Mise… funny and I wonder what their kids would call them.

Leap babe, quit hitting post before you’re finished.

I'm not convinced.

I've been following the gay marriage debate for a while, hoping someone will outline the objective basis for the 'no' case. In a free society, laws restricting behaviour require a strong justification. The onus is on opponents of gay marriage to justify their position.

Most recent opinion pieces have been from the usual religious and other conservative figures saying 'we don't like it', or 'God doesn't like it'. The better articles make some attempt to persuade everyone in the community, rather than just fellow conservatives, by raising practical objections supported by evidence, although I haven't seen anything convincing yet.

So I was pleased to see an article presenting the 'no' case from a leading rationalist. At last, someone who isn't just trying to impose their own values on everyone else. However the argument is unconvincing --- 'Marriage symbolises the bonding of male and female for the purpose of raising a family. Therefore marriage should only be between a man and a woman.' In a sense the argument is derived from the biology of reproduction. However marriage is about the community in which the family lives. Support, love, commitment, nurturing and the search for happiness.

To convince me, the 'no' argument needs to explain why a same sex family is different to a man-woman family, and why it shouldn't be celebrated and cherished by its community in the same way. In particular, the 'no' case needs to explain why the children in same sex families (there are many) should consider their family to be unworthy of such standing in their community.

"just so long as the argument for exclusionary treatment is Rational!"

But that's just it, rational WmTrevor and "logical" Ammonite.
Marriage *isn't* rational.
It's symbolism.

But you leftist/atheist/progressive/whatevers never get it.

I've had numerous experiences with you Science/Reason fanatics, and you just don't get anything non-literal.

Symbolism, metaphor, hypothesis, analogy.
In one ear and out the other.
Bunny in the headlights.

Why on Earth do gays want "marriage"?
Most straights don't get married these days and most of those marriages fail.
Are you aware of the relationship turnover rate in the gay community?
I'm sure the lawyers want gay marriage!

Quick response: "thin vaneer of bias for long standing and imposed religious authodox 'hetro only' traditions"

Another bunny.
Don't you get it? Even if religion had NEVER existed, there'd be a social bias favoring heterosexuality, precisely for the symbolic and practical motives reasons stated in the article.

Lexi "What business is it of anyone as to who marries whom?"

Because you live in a *society* with *other* people.
You are not free to marry children, 37 different spouses, your dog or your recently deceased lover.
There are always limits.

sauropod "The onus is on opponents of gay marriage to justify their position."

No, currently there's no such thing as "gay marriage".
It's something *you* want to invent and introduce to society.
The onus is on you to justify this.

Gays can already jointly own property and inherit assets.
They can have children.
They can have a wedding to celebrate their relationship publicly.
Right now.

It's really all about approval, homosexuals want respectability hence they wish to make playing in the waste disposal unit on a par with playing in the fun parlor.

There will always be resistance by heterosexuals to attempts to make homosexuality equal to heterosexuality.

Gee, I throw a few words down about this thread before I set off for work this morning, and return home this evening to find others arguing over my ability to understand biology or not? Lol!

I learnt about it all fairly extensively in my midwifery training, and yes I even delivered babies from lesbian women!
And guess what, they screamed just as much, and loved their babies just as much as the labouring heterosexual women I assisted.

divine_msn <'One of the 'Parents' in a same sex household with children is not going to be a biological one"

True enough. But then neither do adopted children or stepchildren live in families with both their biological parents present.

Does that fact make these families any less effective at parenting, or any less worthy of being married than those families where both are biological parents are present?

As others have said, does being childless, or not having your own biological child living with you, make you unworthy of marriage?

@Shockadelic,
>No, currently there's no such thing as "gay marriage".
>It's something *you* want to invent and introduce to society.
>The onus is on you to justify this.

No. That would be like asking women to justify why they should have the vote, or slaves to justify why they should be free.

As you point out, same sex families already exist, they have children, and have weddings. Gay marriage is not a new invention. It already exists and people are doing it. The issue is that the government refuses to register them.

> You are not free to marry children, 37 different spouses,
> your dog or your recently deceased lover.

There are valid reasons for each of these restrictions. The restriction on polygamy is justified by the need to protect women (usually) and to avoid the instability and unfairness which would arise from lots of one sex (usually men) having no potential partners. A person wishing to have children, but with no prospect of finding a mate has a diminished interest in building a stable society and abiding by the law.

I am yet to hear a similarly valid reason against gay marriage. The 'no' case needs to explain how gay marriage will similarly threaten the stability of society, or diminish the welfare other people

Philo bluntly but persuasively argues that the sexual activities of male homosexuals indicates their low esteem of their biology, their offspring, themselves and their future.

(OLO, 24 April 2011 8:47:11 AM in ‘Are Christians really the source of Oz values’ by Leslie Cannold)

Contrast that with the optimism, hope, trust and potential that is entered into the participants of actual marriage (as defined up to 30 April 2011 anyhow).

The biological and existential nihilism of homosexuality cannot be accommodated within marriage. It’s up to the homosexual community to think up another term (and conditions) for their proposal.

Well put sauropod.

" The 'no' case needs to explain how gay marriage will similarly threaten the stability of society, or diminish the welfare other people"

It boils down to personal prejudice nothing more and has little to do with symbolism.

The reality is gay people exist, they always have. The presence of homosexuals indicates it is perfectly normal and natural. Natural defined as 'in existence' or 'occurring in nature' - it does not have to be the average or the norm to require special attention in terms of equal rights and respect. Do we insist disabled people cannot marry because they are the minority? Or blondes? Or blue-eyed people?

Thankfully most younger people accept gays as perfectly normal and can't see what all the fuss is about, change for the better is inevitable.

Ian Robinson is a member of the Rationalist Society of Australia.

ON their website under FAQ's, the following:

"What is a rationalist?

A rationalist is a person who accepts the supremacy of reason, and aims at establishing a system of philosophy and ethics independent of arbitrary assumptions and authority."

Due to the limitations of creating a post on this website I will repeat the following in capitals - my intent is not to shout:

AIMS AT ESTABLISHING A SYSTEM OF PHILOSOPHY AND ETHICS INDEPENDENT OF ARBITRARY ASSUMPTIONS AND AUTHORITY.

Ian claims:

"I sometimes think that some members of the homosexual community are playing a game of “Let’s Pretend” – “Let’s pretend we’re heterosexual”: Heterosexual couples have children, so let’s get ourselves a baby. Heterosexual couples get married, so let’s get ourselves married. This seems to me to be at one level a denial of one’s homosexuality, of what makes homosexuality unique. Freedom is not the ability to become like other people, freedom is the ability to become more fully yourself! Isn’t this what “Gay Pride” means. There is no pride in making believe you are just like everyone else.

So by all means find non-discriminatory ways to recognise same-sex relationships but don’t do it at the expense of blurring and obscuring the unique role of sexual reproduction and its social representation in marriage in the continuing social life of our species."

Ian fails the aims of his own organisation by ASSUMING that gays are playing "let's pretend" they are the same as heterosexuals.

1. Not all heterosexuals "are the same".
2. He ASSUMES to know the mind of a section of society.

He places heterosexual marriage as a sacred AUTHORITY that would be "obscured" should gays have the same choice as heterosexuals - to marry or not.

The CEO of the Rationalist Society really needs to have a few words with Ian about thinking rationally.

No rational thinking would ever promote or endorse a lifestyle so prone to disease.

Shocka:“Marriage *isn't* rational. It's symbolism.”

Nah that’s the Wedding I think. Marriage is a contract under the law that secures property and certain rights to the other party and offspring. Don't quote me, I'm still trying to find a proper description of it in the Marriage Act 1961.

It is a complete myth that there are any parallels in nature to homo sexual lifestyle preference. Most people are against gay marriage because homosexual attration is a taught or learnt behaviour.

We don't want people with such religious fervour for their lifestyle foisting their belief systems upon the innocent i.e children derived by scientific methods or adoption for the purpose of appeasing such people.They think they can grow their own gays.

Now is a time that provides more opportunity for the gay lobby to sell it wares than ever before with the introduction of laws supporting their cause. But there is no way I would like to see any child be subjected or exposed any interest group that aspires to grow their obscure community by getting access to children.

These same people demand the right to classify any one that is opposed to there viewpoint, as phobic or morally bereft or mentally ill etc in the eyes of children.

In the absence of these newfound opportunity for self promotion the gay community would sink back to its natural level of .0001 of the society in general.

Elton John who just abandoned his mother for apparently offending his Gay partner has elected to have Lady Gaga as Godmother for a child that is a scientific product made to order,and is already being used to promote the cause. My skin is only crawling because I'm a phobic psychotic apparently.

The secular case against gay marriage is rock solid in my book.
The is no such thing as the gay gene

"Thankfully most younger people accept gays as perfectly normal and can't see what all the fuss is about, change for the better is inevitable"

You think so, Pelican?

First the teaching of the Bible has to be overcome and, more importantly, the teachings of the Qur'an.

Is Mise
Surprisingly even the younger Christians my children associate with have no issue with gay marriage or contraception or women as priests. I cannot comment about Islam as I don't know any young Muslims.

Homosexuality cannot be taught or popularised although I can understand why some might play up or emphasise their homosexual identity. That often happens in any minority group where there has been discrimination and prejudice no matter how politely couched.

It is something I know personally having within my own family a young gay person who I can assure you was not taught to be gay or encouraged to be anything but themselves.

None of my kids, who range in age from teens to thirtysomethings, has any problem with the idea of gay people (of whom they know quite a few) who wish to do so getting married. I think it may be because they've been brought up by parents who are neither religious nor homophobic.

I must say that Ian Robinson is no great advertisement for the Rationalist Society of Australia, since in this piece he's evidently confused rationality with rationalisation.

The critical furphies underlying the arguments for governmental registration of homosexual marriages are that:
1. Marriage is something constituted by government
2. Gay marriage is not recognised by government
3. There are only two kinds of sexuality: - heterosexual and homosexual.

All these are false.

Neither government nor the church claim, nor have they ever claimed, to constitute a marriage. All they have ever claimed is to recognize, for their own purposes, a marriage constituted by the act of the parties.

Before the common law, the various ethnicities and tribal societies in Britain had different marriage customs. Obviously in the pre-Christian period not all marriages complied with the Christian definition. Quite apart from the usual variation in human sexuality, probably polygamous marriages existed too. The Christian religion later narrowed the definition to exclude polygamous marriage. Common law later adopted pretty much the Christian definition. It required an explicit heterosexual monogamous lifelong commitment - but no witnesses, no notice, no celebrant. The Marriage Acts in the nineteenth century added the requirements of notice, witnesses, and official registration. (It is this last that the gay marriage advocates mistakenly identify with “marriage”.)

The purpose of the common law in recognizing marriages was to settle legal disputes over property. But why, you might ask, should the details of our intimate lives be ruled by long-dead monks?

Good question. But that’s not an argument *in favour of* registering homosexual marriages. It’s an argument *against* the governmental registration of sexual relationships.

Under modern Australian laws, homosexual marriage is recognized. It’s just not registered. *In substance* homosexuals have the same rights as married couples to form committed relationships, publicly celebrate them, and arrange their affairs to their mutual satisfaction using contracts, trusts, wills, and powers of attorney. (In fact they have more, because polygamy is illegal.)

And as a matter of symbolism, there is no more reason homosexuality should be accorded the same status as heterosexuality; than should my sexual proclivities - involving nuns, elephants and custard.

Therefore the gay marriage advocates have the anus.

It’s interesting how when pro-gay “marriage” hysterics defend their boutique agendas that they attack Christians with a stunning righteousness.

I’ve also witnessed some attack gays against gay "marriage" with a certain madness that defies reason. The Greens too feel threatened by any type of debate(unless you’re Muslim).

Thankyou Peter Hume for a considered response.
Yes, same sex couples already marry. The argument is about registration and recognition.

As you say, the motivation for registering marriages is to resolve property disputes, and also to allow people to determine whether their future spouse is in fact already married.

And agreed, there is scope within existing law for same sex couples to enter into contracts and other legal agreements which closely approximate the marriage contract. Part of the problem is that this is complicated and the enforcement of these contracts is uncertain. Hence the suggestion for a 'civil union' granting a clearly understood set of property rights to the parties, which would be registered similarly to marriages.

It is important that a civil union is given equal legal standing to a marriage. For example, imagine a woman with children in a same sex civil union finds that, when some time later her spouse marries a man, the man gets all of the property and superannuation of her former spouse as marriage is held to have higher legal standing than civil unions. There would be no point to entering the civil union in the first place. So, to be effective, civil unions have to be exclusive (ie. monogamy) of other civil unions and marriages, and also have to grant spousal property rights which are considered equal to marriage rights by the law.

In short, to fulfill its intended purpose, a civil union has to be considered by the law to be a marriage. Are there any rights in marriage which would not be granted to civil unions?

Not only should homosexual people be allowed to "marry", but our civilised society should also display a similar lack of "discrimination" by allowing people so disposed to haveing sex with animals to be allowed to "marry" them also.

Society should also show "tolerance" by not "discriminatating" against father who wish "marry" the daughters, mothers who wish to "marry" their sons, brothers who wish to "marry" their sisters, nor cousins who wish to "marry" each other.

Men should also be allowed to "marry" litle girls, or to "marry" little boys, if their peferences take them that way. after all, the principles of anti discrimination and tolerance must over ride public revulsion in every case. A person's sexuality is a probably another Human Right because trendy lefties can always find a way to make principles such as "tolerance" and "anti discrimination", mean anything they damn well want it to.

I would draw the line on those who enjoy having sex with dead people though, and not allow them to "marry" the dead. I know that this is "intolerence" and "discrimination", but even those who vote for the Greens may possess a skerrick of decency which may over ride their natural inclination to always attack the cultural values which have always held their own societies together.

Lego, the response to your foolish blether is simple: anyone should be allowed to do anything they want as long as the other people involved agree to it. Your right to free movement of your fist stops at my face.

LEGO
The case for same-sex marriage assumes a consensual agreement and the principle of 'no harm'.

The fact you compare SSM to acts of sexual abuse and cruelty does nothing but diminish your argument against same-sex marriage and only highlights the long reach of ingrained prejudice.

Sauropod
As I have shown, it's not about "registration and recognition". Gay "marriages" are already recognised under the property relationships acts. It's solely about *registration*.

"imagine a woman with children in a same sex civil union finds that, when some time later her spouse marries a man, the man gets all of the property and superannuation of her former spouse as marriage is held to have higher legal standing than civil unions."

Lemee see if I've got this. So woman1 has children to a guy or guys, then a lesbian relationship with woman2, then woman2 leaves the first, marries a man and woman2 dies. Why would woman2's widower inherit any property of woman1?

Presumably you mean that woman1 died somewhere along the line?

But why could not woman2 solve all these problems by her will?

It may be said that she should not have to deal with it by a deliberate act, since a wife in her position could achieve the same effect by default. But is that really your main argument? Because that's what the whole thing comes down to.

Gays actually have more rights than straights because
a) polygamy is illegal, but there's nothing illegal about multiple simultaneous heterosexual relationships.
b) gay "spouses" can make binding property settlements on the basis of contracts undisturbed by the Family Law Act. But spouses can't, because the Family Court will not hesitate to ovverride them; it won't enforce them on their terms. The effect is to enforce meddling uncertainty over marriages that gays are free of.

That's why I can't see why gays would want to be bound into the marriage and family law regime, other than for symbolic purposes which are not legitimate.

Lego's argument is perfectly valid.

As always, things get confused when we mix up the types of rules. The evolutionary, genetic or natural rules govern the predispositions to human and biological tendencies.

The man made rules of religions and civic obligations try to mitigate, change or create social rejection or acceptance of these tendencies.

They are all interrelated and form the basis of various social fabrics’ of species. The task for each society is to balance the socio-political values to suit the “majority” without discrimination against any “minority”. It is the hard line of other minorities that tend to be the worst discriminators.

Peter Hume wrote:
"Lemee see if I've got this. So woman1 has children to a guy or guys, then a lesbian relationship with woman2, then woman2 leaves the first, marries a man and woman2 dies. Why would woman2's widower inherit any property of woman1? "

Not quite. Woman1 has been a homemaker for woman2 and the children in their family. Woman2 is the bread-winner and accumulates a superannuation and investment portfolio and manages the family finances. Then it goes pear shaped and woman2 leaves and marries a man. When woman2 dies, woman1 and her children try to claim some portion of woman2's estate, but the man would get it all unless the law were to give equal weight to their civil union.

Don't get too hung up on the details. The point is that for every situation involving multiple heterosexual marriages in which marriage registration is needed to protect the parties, one can imagine an equivalent situation involving same sex unions. And they need to have equal legal standing, otherwise one party can escape from the responsibilities of a civil union by getting married.

You can't fix it with wills. The courts can override wills which have unjustly omitted spouses and children, and there are situations when this is needed for same sex marriages too. In my example above, woman2 might have left her estate to her first family, but the man can challenge the will and claim a greater share on the basis that marriage has a superior claim to civil unions.

Dear Lego,

You should differentiate and draw the line between society and government. Being a member of society is voluntary - being subject to state-laws is not. It's therefore OK if society wishes to discriminate because you could simply walk out if you don't like what it does, but you physically cannot walk out of the state-institutions' power, or else they will shoot you.

Suppose you want to marry 5 little boys, 10 dead camels and a grandfather's clock. Suppose you even form your own church which is happy to bless that marriage: society has the right to be disgusted and reject you, but the state has no right to stop you (I didn't mention having sex with the above, did I?).

As I mentioned above, I believe that the state should have nothing to do with marriages in the first place, it should be obliviant to such private associations.

Sauropod
But it is about the details, because they show that gay “marriages” are in no worse position than heterosexual marriages in any question of substance. The argument is solely about the contested symbolical question of governmental registration of homosexual relationships, which can resolve into nothing but an exercise of arbitrary power either way.

In your hypothetical, Woman1 has a remedy
1. in equity under a constructive trust, and/or
2. in statute under the Family Provisions Act
without regard to marriage, heterosexuality or homosexuality.

1. means that, if it would be unconscionable for Woman2 to keep or dispose of property without making fair provision for Woman1, a court will order that Woman2 pay up.

2. means that Woman1 can apply to have Woman2’s will overturned on the grounds that Woman2 had not made fair provision considering their former relationship, Woman1’s contributions, and so on.

Not only that, but if Woman1’s earlier relationship had been a heterosexual marriage, she would be in no different position. Thus it is not true that marriage “has a superior claim to civil unions” in any question of substance, that I know of.

Your argument is no different to the argument before the enactment of the de facto relationships acts, that de facto spouses were hard done-by compared to de jure spouses. But those acts, now broadened to include homosexual and other intimate relationships, have taken the ground from under your feet.

If gays were really concerned about civil rights, equality and social justice, they should be agitating for the decriminalization of bigamists, who are still persecuted with imprisonment, and spare us the faux outrage about their inability to obtain governmental registration of sexual relationships, when such registration should be abolished in any event.

The argument is nothing to do with any question of injustice, and everything to do with the bustling insensitive self-entitlement of the gay lobby trying to cajole and bully-rag everyone else into according a like status to their sexuality that they know very well the population at large has always disagreed with.

"...the gay lobby trying to cajole and bully-rag everyone else into according a like status to their sexuality that they know very well the population at large has always disagreed with..."

All the opinion polls suggest that the 'population at large' is rapidly changing its mind, so if that's your only objection it should soon be overcome. Or is the 'population at large' just shorthand for 'people I agree with'?

So, no response to my reasoning, just personalising the issues with a bit of mind-reading and appeal to absent authority thrown in - is that the best anyone can do?

[Deleted for abuse.]

Ammonite,

'I think you may need to clarify the meaning of 'ahead' - as in further advanced, more knowledgeable. Therefore, unless you too are a medical professional - Suze remains more aware of the basics of human reproduction than you.'

I'm sceptical. I remember Suze thought it was impossible to urinate with an erection.

Peter Hume can dress up his homophobia with as much legalistic sophistry as he likes, but he only does so to avoid what is the central question of this debate, i.e. why shouldn't those homosexual people who want to be allowed to marry their life partners like everybody else?

In reading Peter's numerous, often intelligent, comments here I had the impression that he's something of a libertarian. However, in this case it seems that homophobia trumps political philosophy.

I always agree with Pete on this one...

'The critical furphies underlying the arguments for governmental registration of homosexual marriages are that:
1. Marriage is something constituted by government
2. Gay marriage is not recognised by government
3. There are only two kinds of sexuality: - heterosexual and homosexual.

All these are false. '

Settled. Drinks!

I think the bigger issue is the poor downtrodden de-facto couples. These people have made no commitment to each other, and have been forced into being responsible for each other by the government.

Why? Because the same sex couples wanted the same rights of married couples. It pisses me off. The choice allowed by heterosexual couples has been narrowed. No longer are you allowed by law to shag and live with someone without being 'married' by default.

So let's bring back marriage as an explicit contract. De-facto law has done 10 times more to de-legitimise proper marriage than allowing gay people to make an explicit contract.

H

I am quite sure Suze is completely unfamiliar with your anatomy, usually one needs to be a little less than full on hard to be able to pee. Something to terrify the ladies - yes he can pee in your vagina.

However, none of this has any thing to do with understanding discrimination against gays, nor methods of procreation. The topic I suspect you were trying to camouflage - but I guess that's your job here at OLO - deride and derail. You deserve a medal or something...

Fact is homosexuals do not have the choice to marry. It is taken away from them even if there are many homosexuals who would not choose to marry in the same way that there are de-facto couples.

Strangely I agree with Houlley about the de-facto status thing, however it does make a difference if the couple have children. The rights and responsibilities of parents does not change with marriage under Family Law which makes a mockery of the legal angle that pushes the idea that marriage is only a framework in which to have and raise children.

There is no harm in all manner of families and types of relationships. People should be free to engage in activities that cause no harm to anyone else and are really no-one else's business.

No-one has mounted a strong case as to why SSM should be verboten other than saying they don't like it.

Wow,

What a sensitive, logical argument.

Well done Ian this is the first balanced, sane article I have seen on this topic which nornally drowns in emotional bandwagons.

If I place my biases aside I am unable to fault the rational logic presented.

Why must we always defend our bandwagons instead of seeking to understand the authors intent.

If we are to truly evolve into something greater we have to be open to advanced logical thinking.

I shall now go and reread the article again for a third time.

pelican I think you can make parents responsible for children without any corresponding responsibility for each other.

It's a strange idea this de-facto law. It's almost as if the church is running the governmnet or something. It's like, 'how dare you live in sin, we hereby declare you married! We can't face it!'

In the end, the government should stay out of people's romantic lives and sex lives altogether.

I blame those public service form makers that must categorise us and make us tick boxes. Then when we put down Jedi as a religion they decide to ignore us and change it to a tick box of 'other'.

I really think the Secret Brethren have more influence than people realise.

'No-one has mounted a strong case as to why SSM should be verboten other than saying they don't like it.'

I don't like it works pretty well in all sorts of areas. Public nudity, public sex, polygamy, Sex with animals.

I don't really have a stake. I'm not a stakeholder, as marriage is not important to me. I can't relate. What I can relate to is the attitude

'Freedom is not the ability to become like other people, freedom is the ability to become more fully yourself! '

Now, given they have practically given all rights to defactos (or enforced responsibilities on people who choose to not marry, ie taken away rights of marriage averse heterosexuals) why does it matter?

In the end it's all this 'Gay Pride' which I have never been able to work out. I'm not 'proud' to be hetero, I just am. I could, at a stretch accept 'not ashamed', but really you're just playing the game on bigots terms if you do that. It is self evident that your sexuality would not be a source of shame. The idea is ridiculous, and attributing pride to such a thing gives bigots power.

Morganzola
There is nothing libertarian about arguing for the governmental registration of sexual relationships.

It is the gay marriage advocates who are pushing legal sophistry. As I have shown it is completely empty of any point of substance, and you have been completely unable to say anything against but name-calling, ho-hum.

Pelican
Gay marriage is not verboten; homosexuals have the same right as everyone else to do exactly what heterosexuals do to marry each other, celebrate these commitments, and enforce them.

Your idea that our personal relationships are made by government is completely false. Not even the government believes it or claims to. For example if a couple get married under the Marriage Act, and then one spouse applies for permanent residence on that basis, the government will not accept its own certificate of marriage as evidencing the existence of the marriage. Similarly with marital status in social security law. The government looks to *the substance* of the matter, not mere formality, and in substance, there is no different between the status of homosexual “marriage” and heterosexuals’.

The argument about gay marriage is *solely* about the mere formality of registration, which does *not* define marriage even according to the government, and no-one advocating government registration of homosexual marriage has shown why, by their own reasoning,
a) all other forms of human sexuality should not have an equal claim, and
b) government registration of sexual relationships should not be abolished.
“People should be free to engage in activities that cause no harm to anyone else and are really no-one else's business´
You contradict your own position in favour of persecuting polygamists.

And yes Houellebecq, the clamour for government to define our sexual relationships causes the injustice, that the government imposes a one-size-fits-all template of monogamous marriage on everyone, whether they want it or not.

Far better to abolish both the marriage and de facto relationships acts and let everyone shape their own relationships according to their own values. The only alternative is endless invidiousness and acrimony that can never be resolved except by arbitrary political favouritism.

“It's a strange idea this de-facto law. It's almost as if the church is running the governmnet or something.”

Yeah funny the whole church run govt thing but isn’t the de-facto thing about welfare benefits, a couple receiving less than two individuals?

So do couples of any variety really need a whole new contract under the law to establish rights or just no more marriages at all but anyone can have the wedding and dress like a bloody great pavlova?

And yes I can vouch for boys peeing at a various angles. You must move fast when changing nappies.

H

>> In the end it's all this 'Gay Pride' which I have never been able to work out. I'm not 'proud' to be hetero, I just am. <<

Then you've never been abused for being hetero either have you? I'm guessing you're white also. The complacency of the dominant majority...

What possible impact on your white middleclass life could SSM have on a bloke like you? Aaaah I forgot your 'role' at OLO: 'agent provocateur'.

Ammonite,

Someone's got a new moniker huh? Whatever. You address me with some kind of familiarality, but I don't have the faintest who you are. Maybe you're a long time listener first time caller.

Your comprehension skills seem lacking. Either that or it is you who is the true provocateur.

My position is quite simple.

1. The effect of affording same sex marriage equal rights while not allowing same sex couples to marriage (ie recent changes to de-facto law), in effect, took away rights form heterosexual couples who wished to live in 'sin'. As the author says, 'It is achieving equality for some by taking something important away from many others, and that, I think, is not just. '. Although the author was talking about taking something away from married people, and I cant see 'what' has been taken away from them. Exclusivity? I dunno. De-facto couples are the ones who have had the right not to marry taken away.

2. I am in favour of same sex marriage, and in fact any mechanism where marriage is an explicit contract rather than an implicit, enforced, 'defacto' ruse. Though I really don't care too much as I don't really value marriage in any way.

Just how you have decided that I am against SSM in any way I'll never know.

'The complacency of the dominant majority...'

As I said, 'It is self evident that your sexuality would not be a source of shame. The idea is ridiculous, and attributing pride to such a thing gives bigots power.'

So, to spell it out for the vitriolic, chip on both shoulders harpie that is Ammonite, I don't think gay people have anything to be ashamed about, and I support them wholeheartedly, and I think letting bigots define you by reacting to them is counter-productive.

This in no way could be construed as a lack of empathy for gay people and the adversity they have faced, or an objection to SSM. Your response however can only be construed as a knee jerk reaction from an imbecile.

Next.

'I don't like it works pretty well in all sorts of areas. Public nudity, public sex, polygamy, Sex with animals.'

Not the same thing Houlley. One could easily mount a case for sex with animals as in the arena of cruelty and there is certainly no mutual consent; or that polygamy is set up to discriminate against women within our cultural bounds. In societies where polygamy is legal women are not allowed to take more than one husband (Islam, certain Christian sects such as within the Latter Day Saints).

Public nudity or public sex is a little harder to make a case for 'no harm' (unless perhaps children are depicted in faux sexual acts or similar), however it is not impossible. Many people think sex is for the bedroom or in private - however a case could be made about the effect on children if there were no restraint on public sexual intercourse. That is, allowing children to develop and experience life in accordance to their maturity.

Many of these topics are subjective but reason and commonsense should prevail wherever possible.

Peter's perception that SSM is really all about registration by some government official is probably apt, but why should SS couples not be able to have their 'marriage' government approved if they feel the need? It goes beyond that, in recognising that homosexuals are people and are part of the same community, regardless what one thinks of the reach of government involvement. That is a separate issue that involves not only SSM but any marriage.

H

Looks like I hit your buttons, for all your claims of being pro-SSM, else why the ad-hominem "to spell it out for the vitriolic, chip on both shoulders harpie that is Ammonite"?

Well at least I'm balanced...
:P

So why does "gay pride" 'prick' a nerve? If you have no problem with gays? Yeah, I understand you're not biased, BUT......

@Shockadelic,
>No, currently there's no such thing as "gay marriage".
>It's something *you* want to invent and introduce to society.
>The onus is on you to justify this.

sauropod "No. That would be like asking women to justify why they should have the vote, or slaves to justify why they should be free."

Actually, people *did* have to justify changing voting laws (lengthy debates I'm sure occurred) and abolishing slavery (that one led to a war!)

Every thing that exists was once also introduced and changed the exisiting society and was justified at the time or it wouldn't exist today.

Marriage was once *not* recognised by the state. It was private.
Legislation had to be *introduced* and therefore "justified".

As you can see from the debate here, even that is being questioned.
But people advocating the repeal of the existing law would *also* have to justify it.

> You are not free to marry children, 37 different spouses,
> your dog or your recently deceased lover.

"There are valid reasons for each of these restrictions."

Most of those "reasons" are not rational at all.
They are based on sentiments, opinions, beliefs.

Just like people's attitudes to gay marriage.

When it comes to human societies, there is no absolutely right or wrong answer.

Your obsession with "reason" is why you don't understand humans and their societies.

Reason is one little element, occasionally glimpsed, in the otherwise mad, magnificent, montrous mix that is "humankind".

Like most people I know, I don't care a fig if people of the same sex want to live in a relationship like the one that for years has been called "marriage" and have all the legal rights and responsibilities that heterosexual couples have. I just wish they'd find their own word for it so that we don't lose another perfectly good word like we did when we lost "gay".

There has been a lot of posts since I last looked in, but not much that hasn't been said earlier. Peter Hume's argument against gay marriage seems to be that marriage registration itself is not needed. At least that's internally consistent, and perhaps even correct. But that's an argument for fixing marriage registration, laws on de facto couples etc, not an argument to do nothing on gay marriage.

Shockadelic criticises the "obsession with reason" and claims some reasons presented elsewhere are just opinions. Which is just an opinion itself. A world unable to at least strive for clear reasoned thought is a fairly dismal, postmodern view of our society. I'm not saying there is a right or wrong answer. Quite the opposite in fact. I'm saying that in the absense of a clear right/wrong answer, people should be allowed to make their own choices. That's the basis of our free society.

I am with the author on this one. I'm married - and have been for 50 years and we have grandchildren. I've spent a lfetime fighting for the rights of the disabled, disadvantaged and against discrimination. I applaud the recognition - albeit it took too long - of the legal rights of same sex couples.Same sex civil unions should also be legally recognised and celebrated - but not as "marriage". I have very dear homosexual friends whose comments are the same as mine and, in fact, they find it hard to understand why some sections of the gay and lesbian community won't accept the "civil union" terminology and keep pushing for acceptance of their unions as "marriage". Our friends accept, quite happily that their "union" is different to our "marriage". Provided all the rights and entitlements afforded to couples in "civil unions" are fair, and legally recognised, I reckon the current lobby to change the marriage laws could be counter productive if it lessens the growing community acceptance of "civil unions".

When Robinson writes about his "gay uncle," he says, "I am now almost certain that he was gay and I am grateful that he was. If he had been heterosexual he would most probably have married and had his own children and been too busy with them to give me the benefit of his dignified presence."

I hear this kind of talk a lot from straight people who are "grateful" for their gay friends because somehow, in their minds, gay people make their lives better. I just want to point out that gay people aren't here to make anyone's lives better. We're not helper animals who exist to serve and improve straight people's lives. In fact, Robinson's gladness is kind of disappointing since the benefit he derived from his godfather/uncle's "dignified presence" probably came at the expense of his godfather/uncle's personal and domestic peace. Poor man.

I am an atheist and human rights advocate who feels uncomfortable about the meaning of “marriage” being changed to include same-sex couples. I tried to work out where my unease comes from and expressed my concerns in the opinion piece above. I expected a respectful and reasoned response to my concerns but I mainly got abuse. It worries me that people who would expect their own views to be respected and responded to with understanding are not prepared to give the same respect and understanding to others. Reading the responses above I have learned the following:
• if you are a heterosexual who writes about homosexuality you are in a lose-lose situation: if you are negative about gays you are homophobic / if you are positive about them you are merely cloaking your homophobia with insincere words. You can’t win!
• few people actually read and follow your argument. Most see a few key words, jump to unwarranted conclusions and rush to judgement.
• people seem more interested in your motivations and personality than your arguments.

It seems to me that there is clearly a secular case to be made out against same-sex marriage. The question is does it outweigh the case for such marriage? I’m not at all sure that it does, but I think it has to be at least considered. There is no doubt that we lose something, an important distinction at the very least, by broadening the notion of marriage to include non-reproductive couples. The question to be explored is do we gain more than we lose? Is the loss worth the gain? I think this is a real question that has to be considered (and not merely shouted down) and it may well be that after careful consideration everyone, including me, comes to the conclusion that what is gained by thus redefining marriage more than compensates for the loss of meaning involved, so we all end up supporting same-sex marriage. But the question has to be asked and the conclusion reached by reason without prejudging it. I trust I have contributed to that rational debate.

sauropod "A world unable to at least strive for clear reasoned thought is a fairly dismal, postmodern view of our society."

Dismal?
If anything, a world excusively based on rational thought would be a boring one. I think the ultimate sin of Man is to be boring.
The kind of activists that promote these issues are generally the most boring people on Earth.

A not-exclusively-rational world is one where one culture can decide that wearing a fish on your head is the ultimate in chic.
And other cultures are free to laugh at them (and wear cheese instead).

"I'm not saying there is a right or wrong answer. Quite the opposite in fact. I'm saying that in the absense of a clear right/wrong answer, people should be allowed to make their own choices."

Does that include elected representatives?
Who are "free" to vote against such amendments?

Ian Robinson "I expected a respectful and reasoned response to my concerns but I mainly got abuse. It worries me that people who would expect their own views to be respected and responded to with understanding are not prepared to give the same respect and understanding to others"

Welcome to the wonderful world of Progressivism.
I've given up expecting any kind of sensible reaction from these robots.

Mezzie thank you for your support for same sex couples, however you fail by your arrogant comment that Marriage should only be as you see it!
This is not your world or your life, it belongs to each and every person, that has love in them. Mezzie wish you well but until you have lived life, you have no right to conmment on others emotional needs.

Um yah
'I don't mind blacks as long as I don’t live next door to them'
Or
'Some of my best friends are Jewish!'
What a patronizing piece of pulp.
I particularly enjoyed reading the parts about the civilized, cultivated uncle. LOL
Yah gays can b so useful to straight upbringing like some servile class but never quite make as full human beings.
Cause that’s ONLY for straights.
Sometimes I have to pinch myself and ask, am I in the 1950's or the 21st century?!

I note the wave of ‘meism’ that seems to prevail in many of the responses to Ian’s article.

I personally value marriage based on my 30 years experience of its challenges and joys. My marriage definitely benefited society due to the changes the relationship made in me and the children we produced.

The essence of my argument is that heterosexual marriage is unique because it has certain biological characteristics or potential that cannot be replicated.

The attempt to define a same sex identity seems to me to be a related, but separate issue.

Characteristics, such as commitment, etc, are always commendable in any form of personal relationship. They however do not make a marriage; unless of course the meaning of marriage is diminished. The consequence is that society would be made poorer for the benefit of a 'statistical few' attempting to redefine themselves into another mould.

A good marriage is the optimum structure to create and develop the future generations. For a good society the foundations of marriage should be strengthened not weakened, as marriage needs all the help it can get. While this discussion is interesting, for it to have a positive effect on society one of its outcomes should be the encouragement to improve and strengthen heterosexual marriage which is the lifeblood and foundational unit of all counties and all cultures.

Ian, Once again thank you for your rational and considered article. Well done.

Many of these posts are predicated on outdated ideas of fertility. If ur NOT fertile u are only half a person. Ask any true blue feminist wot she thinks of that?!
And just for the record with all this talk of babies and children and marriage, the sperm count of men has fallen dramatically in the Western world. In the most catholic country of Italy the baby count has almost fallen to zero, statistically one of the lowest birth rates in Europe.
The arguments against same sex marriage put forward here are so flimsy and really clutching at straws to stall the inevitable that has already begun in many countries of the world. The Australian Christian Lobby and 'rationalists?!’ like the author know this. It is only a question of time. But hey, it’s nice to keep trading in the outdated discriminatory prejudice that you peddle just to squeeze that last bit of bile and misery into gay ppl.s lives, as if they haven’t had enough already. Shame on you! And of course being a rationalist ur arguments make perfect sense except for one thing- EMPATHY or lack of it, the failure to be human and understand that everyone deserves meaning and dignity in their life and that to commune or marry is a universal human phenomenon transcending gender. That evolved concept may be a bit too much for you to digest.

JackAlison: "The arguments against same sex marriage put forward here are so flimsy [and the arguments for are so robust?] and really clutching at straws to stall the inevitable that has already begun in many countries"

If it's inevitable, why the push-shove routine?

"It is only a question of time"

Then just wait.

FACT
The declaration of Human rights of which Oz is a signatory uses the term INALIENABLE rights.
This means that ALL human rights are a given.
They are NOT voted on, or debated by the wider community.
You may think that debating a minorities human rights is democracy?!
It most certainly is not.
It was always a time honored task in the past for a male groom to ask the father of the bride for her hand in marriage. Thank God those sexist dayz are ova.
Imagine in 2011 that gay ppl have to 'ask' the entire nation for permission to enjoy the pursuit of happiness that most ppl. take for granted.
Id like u to watch this advert from Ireland regarding gay marriage.it displays the ludicrous situation straight ppl put gays thru time and time again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ULdaSrYGLQ&feature=player_embedded

Respect and commitment are the hallmarks of a good marriage. I never asked the father of my bride for her hand and to this day I regret it. Having experienced three new son in laws tentatively and respectfully ask for the hand of my daughters made all parties in both families feel very special and honoured.

Marriage is special and deserves to be honoured. It is not a toy to be stolen and manipulated for political or gender selfishness. Also we must be wary of what we ask for as there may be significant unintended consequences. In contrast upholding the well proven courtesies of marriage can only benefit all those involved. Happy people means a happy society.

The tendency in some of these posts to denigrate someone else’s tradition in order to support their own selfish arguments is despicable.

We cannot afford to be flippant about marriage. A bad marriage causes much pain and should be prevented at all costs because no one wins .

My concern is that this relentless push to reconstruct marriage may result in damage to the higher ideas of the marriage institution. Innocent bystanders may not approach marriage with the same depth of respect and ‘hard work’ that it deserves and we all know that you reap what you sow.

We are more than just sexual animals so please recognise the true value and courtesies of marriage and honour them. This I believe is an example of true empathy.

We must all live together so respect needs to be two way and mutual.

Well xcuse me for breathing Muse2!
I can see a very rarified and special person who needs to come down from the mists of Mount Olympus and as the British lower classes say, ‘muck in.’ You live in a pluralistic society my friend, that no longer follows only Judeo-Christian values which is really what ur describing with all ur exclusive pretension and faux manners
No- one OWNS marriage. It is a civil right. Gay ppl , black ppl white ppl all pay taxes. If you feel so precious and exclusive, save it for church and go spray ur ‘special’ brand of exclusive bigotry there.
Ul b in good company.

Why play the man? I wish to defend marriage against any attempt to highjack it or corrupt it. A good marriage is a delight to behold not a mocking tool. I was introduced to a couple who clebrated their 70 wedding anniversary and he told me with a twinkle in his eye that he was still on his honeymoon. Lucky character.

Yes he does live in a pluralistc society, so should not society respect his choices and respect marriage?

Dictionary Marriage: Wedlock, State of being married, Wedding, Close union.
Sorry Muse it does not mention Gender or that you have the right to dictate, who should have their loving relationship legally recognised.

"Yes he does live in a pluralistc society, so should not society respect his choices and respect marriage?"
Posted by Muse2, Saturday, 7 May 2011 7:01:39 PM

Yes, yet should society acknowledge that others' choices do Not disrespect his marriage?

sauropod
"But that's an argument for fixing marriage registration, laws on de facto couples etc, not an argument to do nothing on gay marriage."

Yes it is, it's an argument to do nothing on gay marriage, and abolish marriage registration and laws on de facto couples. It's an argument to get government out of people's bedrooms.

In all the nearly one hundred responses to my article I don't think I have read one argument in favour of same-sex marriage, apart from "we don't have it and we want it", which is not actually an argument but a demand. Some people have suggested that it is not fair, but have not specified where the unfairness lies. Fairness doesn't mean treating everyone the same – we don't all have the same needs – but treating everyone according to their differing needs. If same-sex unions are legalised and equal in every respect except they are not called "marriage", what has been lost? I have presented an argument that by calling them "marriages" something is lost – a relevant distinction and a significant symbol. It is incumbent on supporters of same-sex marriage to show that by calling legally recognised same-sex unions "marriages" something important is gained and this gain is greater than what is at the same time being lost.

It has nothing to do with human rights. Having any union between two people being called "marriage" in not a human right. It is a matter of how society decides to best order its affairs and define its terms. This is open to rational discussion. I wait in hope.

Ian Robinson [original author]

"But we must also recognise that there is a sense in which homosexual partnerships are not the same as heterosexual ones and this difference should also be celebrated."

The crux of this bullsh!t argument.

Name them, Ian.

What are these critical, defining differences?

Can't be kids, because many marriages are childless - and always intended to be childless, eg marriages post menopause.

What's the difference? What's the thread that draws all heterosexual marriages together that cannot be present if the couple is homosexual?

You haven't got an answer to that. Because there isn't one.

Jeremy Sear,
It is a husband having vaginal sex with his wife. The vagina was specifically and exclusively designed for heterosexual sex. The vagina has no other function. That is what the term marriage means. The joining together of a man and woman in an exclusive sexual union. Two males improvise by using the anus which was never designed for sex and has another purpose and that is to excrete faeces. This is not a celebration but a perverted act