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.