This article, like the New York style 'reform' it extols, avoids the elephant in the room.

Regrettably, the 'reformers' failed to take into account their universal human rights obligations towards those children who will be affected by these same sex 'marriages'.

Effectively, the establishment of same sex 'marriage' contravenes the solemn obligation to ensure 'as far as possible, a child's right to know and be cared for by his or her parents' (Article 7 Convention on the Rights of the Child).

There are of course many children who through tragic circumstances are cheated of this right.

But it is intellectually dishonest to pretend that setting up radical new marriage laws and corollary laws to guarantee same sex couples' access to adoption, IVF and surrogacy—a raft of laws that deliberately deprive a child of the intimate knowledge and care of his/her own mother or father—is anything other than an intolerable form of human rights abuse.

International human rights have long recognized the concept of a "special protection" that "shall not be considered discriminatory" (e.g. Convention on the Elimination of All Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) Article 4). The significant legal distinction that acquits any Covenant law from the charge of being discriminatory is that it "aims to protect"—the child, the mother, the natural family...

And so, it would be wrong to label as discriminatory, our current marriage laws that promote full recognition of "the social significance of maternity and the role of both parents in the family and in the upbringing of children" and that acknowledge "that the upbringing of children requires a sharing of responsibility between men and women …"(CEDAW Preamble & Article 5).

Indeed, the human rights directive here is unmistakable: that governments must not promote the deliberate creation of situations where the responsibilities of procreation and raising a child are NOT shared between a man and a woman and where full recognition is NOT given to the role of both parents (i.e. not just the maternal parent and her lesbian partner, or the paternal parent and his homosexual partner) in the upbringing of children.

We're actually talking about marriage equality here not the raising of children, RitaJ, but since you brought it up: there is now plenty of evidence around that children raised by same-sex couples do just as well, actually sometimes better, as children growing up in heterosexual households.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/gay-study-083010.html

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html

http://www2.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=38cc20ce-7f14-44ea-b4d9-d4cd16d7a269&k=9378

Good piece, I've never understaood the hate that fills some people, other then to think it's a form of project self loathing.

Personally I can't see what all the fuss is about. Marriage is a serious commitment fo anyone to make and it should be about love. If two consenting adults want to get married and they love each other - what's the big deal? In this day and age it should be a choice that is available to all adult members of society. The marriage act should be about "inclusion," not "exclusion." I definitely agree, as I'm sure so do most reasonable thinking people. Let's have a Referendum - and let the country decide. An elected government should legislate on behalf of all its constituents - not just a select vfew.

Men and women probagated the human race.
Religious leaders, rulers of tribes and of nations took it upon themselves as a means of increasing their support base by enforcing laws and creating marriage as an institution between men and women.
Today the world is getting over populated and many religious groups are losing their support base in droves.
If two people are happy and are willing to share their life together what right do we have to deny them the law of the land and the marriage institution. Are we that narrow minded or are we brain washed by our misguided religious leaders.
There are cases reported of a human wanting to marry his pet be it a dog, a pig, or a horse. Now that's taking it too far and I would certainly object to that.

Aquarius

>> Are we that narrow minded or are we brain washed by our misguided religious leaders.<<

Apparently we are that narrow minded, even Julia Gillard.

>> There are cases reported of a human wanting to marry his pet be it a dog, a pig, or a horse. Now that's taking it too far and I would certainly object to that. <<

I only object because an animal is unable to give consent.

;P

Aquarius, I'll go along with you, as long as we demand these couples breed naturally, & don't get approval for public moneys & special laws to enable them to defy the Darwin principal.

This is very important of course. He have protected them for years by keeping them out of the clutches of that modern version of hell, the Oz Family Court.

It is now time to wipe our hands of the silly buggers, & let them have their lives destroyed as have so many heterosexuals before them.

Good luck suckers.

Why do people bring up animals (in this case pets) or other weird suggestions when it comes to the subject of gays. That I don't get. I realise that some people take their love of pets to the extreme -like
dressing them, leaving them in their wills, or having ornate burial rituals and monuments et cetera - but marriage? Taking it a bit too far.

Marriage is a serious commitment - and it's a private matter - and should be equal under the law - whether straight or gay. As for children? This isn't about that as another poster pointed out. However, I don't think that straight marriages are that famous for
their "happy" families - and happy, secure, children either. It all depends on the people involved doesn't it. So the laws should provide equity for all and not descrimate because that's what's happening now.
Child abuse, cases of incest - are still prevalent in our society.
Gays can't be blamed for that one. However, if you're going to approve same-sex marriage, families and children are part of that equation - and if you legislate one, you have to legislate the other.

The "Gay Marriage" Zeitgeist: Cool Crowd Totalitarianism
by Andy Nowicki

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/zeitgeist/the-gay-marriage-zeitgeist/

Great link, Jay. Replace the word 'gay' with 'Jew' and we could be back in pre-WWII Germany. Or with 'black' and we dropped down the rabbit hole to Australia pre-1972 and the US pre-racial equality for African-Americans.

Lexi:
The Gay liberation manifesto, 1972, first paragraph:
"The oppression of gay people starts in the most basic unit of society, the family. consisting of the man in charge, a slave as his wife, and their children on whom they force themselves as the ideal models. The very form of the family works against homosexuality".

Full text:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1751204/posts

When you put the word "gay" in front of any proposition you're committing to militant anti heterosexual, anti family activism.
Ever wondered why "same sex attracted" and "LGTBI" are the new buzz words for militant "Gays"?
You can soften the image of destructive and anti social ideologies like Marxism or "Gayism" but they still stand against everything and for nothing outside their own nihilistic will to power.

Ronson.
QED, said the spider to the fly, within seconds of posting I've reeled one in, a truly venomous catch too.
You haters gonna Hate, we can't even say, as Andy Nowicki did that it's no ones business what "gays" do and that it's their personal choice to conduct their lives in accordance with their own standards of behaviour or "morality".
Nooooo....It's,do what we say or we'll scream NAZI! NAZI! NAZI!, we'll get you fired from your job, we'll drag you through the courts and bankrupt you or have you jailed for "hate speech".
"Gays" are a power group, they have special protection under the law, special privileges granted which allow them to crush dissenters.
We have the gun at our heads all the time in the form of "Gay youth Suicide" and out of control "Hate Crimes", this isn't about "equality" it's about supremacy and control.

Like Andy I have no problem with homosexuals, it's cliched but like most people I do actually have dear friends and one family member who are "that way".
What I object to is the Hatred from "pro gays", most of whom I'm learning of late are young,middle class, White heterosexuals who want to get back at the society they hate so much.
It's the same deal with refugees, I've only met a handful of actual refugees but they've all been lovely, Middle class, White "Refugee Advocates" , on the other hand are nothing but spiteful, hate filled,bombastic and overbearing.

Jay,

I think you forgot to take your meds with your breakfast today

Dear Jay,

You certainly move in interesting circles.

In the past - it was "reds under the beds," and today it's the fear of
"gays in the beds."

Never mind. Time marches on and things change. Who will we pick on next?

Ronson.
And the two minutes hate ended hours ago.
Maybe I should have chosen the screen name "Perseus" since all I do is take down hideous venom spitting monsters by reflecting their own twisted image back at them.

Some revolutionary you are, "We'll bring down the oppressive heteronormative state by co-operating with them and using their unfair and unethical laws to crush everyone in our path!"

Let me school you, Medusa on the "social contract".
The State is based on a contract where we surrender to the government a monopoly on the use of force on the understanding that they will protect us.
Any use of force in the form of laws that exceeds that mandate is a misuse of that position and a breach of that contract.
Furthermore any breach of that contract on behalf of a Third party is an act of corruption and treason. (Gays, remember have positioned themselves as a Third party, outside society)

Simply put, "Gays"and their supporters are corrupting the social contract and re directing the use of force via "Hate laws" to serve their own Third party interests.
See, nobody is saying for a second that "Gay Liberation" is anything but an attempt at secession from mainstream society and it's oppressive heteronormative standards.
Tell you what, get rid of the "hate laws" first and we'll see what sort of debate we have when both sides are allowed a free range of expression without fear of violence or imprisonment.

In principle I agree that gay's should be able to marry (as should any other consenting adults).

If restrictions are needed then they would be about procreation - eg in the case of close relatives or other cases where it's known that a particular union dramatically increases the risk that children will be born with significant defects.

On the other hand I think that the government should get out of the marriage business. It can manage the laws to ensure that nominations for next of kin status give the expected rights and responsibilities and anything else where the law is required, otherwise what business is it of the governments what status a relationship has.

The government should never place the obligations of marriage on those who have not consented to those oligations - the murky waters around defacto-status being the example I'm aware of there.

In some way's IO think that the gay and lesbian movement has done it's self potential harm by seeking to further legitimise the government/societies "right" to decide on relationship status.

Far better to decide that your happiness isn't dependant on governments approving of your relationship status - "Australia has locked the doors for marriage and happiness for the gay community" and work towards ensuring that your rights to the legal benefits and responsibilities of a relationship are not easily threatened by swings in public opinion (or a particular pollies hang ups).

R0bert

Damn this 24 hr post limit.
Anyway, the point I'm making, or the question I'm posing to the "Gays" and their supporters is:
When does the Liberation struggle end and the reconciliation process begin?
I mean, this has got to be the longest revolution in history, we're coming up on 40 years of "Gay" Liberation.
Any wonder us outsiders think you're nothing more than a bunch of re skinned Trotskyites.
To the homosexuals, is there going to be a "night of the long knives" so to speak, are you seeking post revolutionary normalisation and integration at any point or are there as yet un-met objectives for which the "Gay" Vanguard can be useful?
Do the homosexuals have limited objectives for the revolution or am I simply over estimating the influence of "cooler heads" on the movement?
I ask because it's not something that's talked about a lot and from what I see the revolutionary tempo

JoM

It is not gays who are revolting.

:D

Why should we have a difficulty with a definition of "marriage" as being between a man and a woman, as has always been the normal case for raising a family, and that any other form of union is either a partnership or a legally recognisable contract or union?

In other words, why do gays insist that only "marriage" will do? Surely gays realise that their "union" could never be considered as identical to the normal concept of "marriage", so just what is the purpose of pushing this envelope? What is really to be gained, except a hollow victory over common sense?

I have to agree wholeheartedly with the first poster on this thread, RitaJ, not only on the basis of the rights of children, but more importantly because to recognise any other union as "marriage" is ridiculous, stupid, a blasphemy and a deviation which threatens to demean and diminish all genuine marriages.

Although I cannot agree with Jay in all he has posted on this, he has a point - the gay movement is going overboard, levied and incited by our increasingly "liberal" attitudes, our (forced) insistence on the criminalisation of any form of discrimination, and our increasingly over-zealous acceptance of "political correctness", no matter how unjustified or unjustifiable. All of us have cause to discriminate in our daily lives - which ads to believe, and which to reject, which political "spin" to believe, which tradesman to employ, and which of these, and so many other counter-intuitive options, to reject.

What would be the outcome of a worldwide plebiscite on "marriage"? Does anyone in their right mind think that the world would be happy to accept gay union as being identical to "marriage"? For the West, or any part of it, including New York, to make such an assertion is to court disbelief and derision - and rightly so!

Gays need to exhibit the liberal attitude they espouse, and accept that "marriage" is for genuine male/female couples, and they should be big enough to accept a "legal union" as adequate recognition of their non-heterosexual partnerships.

Saltpetre
...or start their own religion and work around it that way.
You're right, "Westerners" are a tiny minority of the world's population and the pro "Gay" movement is but a sliver of that percentage.
For example, the vast majority of Christians now reside in the Third world and their numbers are growing very rapidly, and we all know where mainstream Islam stands on this issue.
This relentless attack by "Gays" on a supposed White Christendom is being broadcast to the real Christendom, that is to say the "New Christendom" of Africa and Asia. To someone in the Third World who is not as well educated as us and takes the Bible literally this must seem to be not only an affront but an outright attack on their faith, as you said a blasphemy.
We're asked to show leadership on many issues and we (supposedly)stand as a beacon of hope for the Third world, so how does this crazy revolutionary zeal at the top of the "Gay" movement improve our standing?
The Liberal theology has the "all seeing eye" of world opinion as it's deity, yet it's openly declaring war on ideals and a moral code which are, in many cases the only thing that keep a Third Worlder putting one foot in front of the other every day.

This ties into my point,why not kick the Trotskyites, the straight dilettantes and the Haters to the kerb and put together a serious team of grown ups to negotiate?
My "night of the long knives" quip was in some regards over the top, but it's not far from the way a lot of people see the issue, the SA "troublemakers" were purged from the NSDAP because they threatened the negotiations with mainstream parties for control of the Reichstag.
Less hysterical readers will take my meaning in it's proper context, where the SA were accused of being "brown on the outside and red on the inside" the same is being said of the "Gays", Pink on the outside, Red on the inside.

I'll wrap it up on this thread because I've made my point but, seriously, it's been 40 years and, if you listen to the "Gays" there's still "such a long way to go" and it's "one step forward, two steps back".
I for one don't buy it, I think this revolution is truly open ended and it still holds fast to the original manifesto.
In other areas this type of activism is dead, it's anachronistic and what's more it doesn't work, can't work in the information age, time for the "Gays" to either evolve or step aside.

When it comes to Social Justice, Human rights and equality for all, it would appear civilised belief, is not a part of the beliefs of rightwing religous fundamentalists.
One must ask why they want to live in a democratic society, when there are a number of despotic nations for them to choose from to live!

I am constantly amazed at the utter ignorance of some posters on this forum - but then - hey it's the internet so what was I thinking. Actually, I was hoping for reasoned, intelligent discussion - not generalisations, sweeping statements and total lack of facts.

Talking of facts. Each society views its own patterns of marriage, family, and kinship as self-evidently right and proper, and usually as God given as well.

Much of the current concern about the fate of modern family stems from this kind of ethnocentrism.

If we assume that there is only one "right" family form, then naturally any change will be interpreted as heralding the doom of the whole institution.

It is important to recognize, therefore, that there is an IMMENSE
range in marriage, family, and kinship patterns, that each of these patterns may be, perfectly viable, and above all, that the family and marriage, like any other social institution, must inevitably change through time, in our own society, as in all others.

Beautifully expressed Lexi.

And it is people like you who prevent OLO from being just a wing-nut blog.

Ammonite,

Do I take it you have a problem with what I posted? If so, I would dearly like to hear the basis of your objection.

Ammonite thinks some posters to this site could cause it to become just another 'wing-nut blog', if not for rational posters like Lexi.
I second that notion. Lol :)
Whatever could have made you think she was talking about you Saltpetre?

Saltpetre<"...to recognise any other union as "marriage" is ridiculous, stupid, a blasphemy and a deviation which threatens to demean and diminish all genuine marriages."

You could answer one question for me though, following your little rant above:
Exactly HOW would legalizing gay marriage demean or diminish heterosexual marriage?
The very few Gay marriages that would be performed if legal, as opposed to the usual much larger numbers of heterosexual marriages performed, would hardly matter at all.

Remember, not every heterosexual marriage wants or ends up having children, and anal sex is practiced within marriage - especially in those strict Catholic marriages where contraception is not allowed, and they already have more than enough children!

suzeonline,

You misrepresent my post, and fail to acknowledge my conviction that gays can have any legal name for recognition of their legal union, other than "marriage". Instead you select a portion and call it a "rant". I don't care much for your rendering a numeric value to marriage, and I care just so very much less for your education in sexual behaviour. There is already a legal understanding of marriage. Surely the intricacies of gay union deserve their own, and separate, legal foundation?

Marriage is marriage, and gay union is not. Simple, and never the twain shall meet. Get it! (And, I don't really care if you do or not - it's a free world.)

Saltpetre I was brought up in a loving environment, and was aware that love in any form is beautiful. You deny the right of same sex marriage, and support only opposite sex marriage, though never mention love in support of your argument

Having ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Australian governments are obliged to restrict marriage to between a man and a woman.

According to the UN Human Rights Committee:

"Article 23, paragraph 2, of the Covenant is the only substantive provision in the Covenant which defines a right by using the term 'men and women', rather than 'every human being', 'everyone' and 'all persons'. Use of the term 'men and women'...has been consistently and uniformly understood as indicating that the treaty obligation of States parties stemming from article 23, paragraph 2, of the Covenant is to recognize as marriage only the union between a man and a woman wishing to marry each other."

In the International Journal of Human Rights 14.7 (2010), Jakob Cornides, enunciates the incompatibilities that prevent 'same-sex marriage' from serious consideration as an issue of 'equality'.

Cornides has pointed out that "the institution of 'marriage' does not have the purpose of 'rewarding' people for loving each other; for this reason, the argument that homosexually oriented people, too, are capable of 'loving'...is of no relevance."

Cornides can find no legitimacy in human rights law for changing the meaning of 'marriage'.

"...if 'family' is no more to be defined by descent or marriage between persons of the opposite sex, by which other criteria shall it then be defined? Created as a pre-requisite for same-sex 'marriage', the adoption of children by same-sex couples, etc., this new concept turns 'family' into something of an artificial construct, removed from biological reality: the arbitrary invention of a legislator, which at any time could be replaced through another arbitrary invention of another legislator as mores once again change. If this is accepted, a legislator's imagination is limitless: every constellation of two or more persons could be styled a 'marriage' or 'family', and the traditional meaning of both terms would be undermined or even disappear altogether. Labeling all and sundry as 'marriage' and 'family' could be an efficient way of destroying the traditional and logical meaning – perhaps more efficient than abolishing it directly'."

Dear Saltpetre,

Times change. People's entire way of thinking about marriage has changed: it is now viewed less as an economic arrangement or a kinship alliance, and more as a companiosnhip based on the emotional commitment of two individuals. Traditional family and marriage forms have given way to others that are better adapted to the changed conditions of social and economic life. People today are more concerned with self-fulfillment as a personal goal. Individual desires become more important than traditional obligations, and people expect personal freedom in their choice of mate.

You seem worried that same-sex marriages will adversely affect the institution of marriage. You are entitled to your opinion. However, the percentage of predominantly homosexual people in the population is relatively small and the great majority of gay men and lesbian women form stable, long-lasting relationships with a person of the same sex at some time in their lives. How this can be detrimental I frankly can't see especially when you consider the high divorce rate and the decay of family amongst heterosexual couples. The single-parent families, serial monogamy, (marrying more than once), open marriages, communes, and so on. Same-sex mariages may well turn out to be a stabilizing force in our society compared to what's currently on offer.

RitaJ 50% of opposite sex marriages end in divorce, can you please comment on why this is?
Life evolves and Gays (human beings like yourself)in years gone by where considered to be criminals Why? Because of the ignorance of those days.
Times have changed, social thinking has changed, and respect for others have changed for the better. RitaJ why be unhappy about something that will not take anything away from you.

And let's not forget 60% of Australian marriages are now performed by marriage celebrants with no religious element.

I often think when opponents of marriage equality complain that same sex marriage will destroy heterosexual marriages then those marriages can't have very strong foundations.

If you're honest in your thinking, marriage equality won something in New York state (and elsewhere where it's now legal), but the opponents of it lost nothing.

I know what I said about wrapping up...but.
Bullet points;

-"Flexible attitdues" toward the definition of marriage are a conceit of a very tiny minority of a very tiny minority.
If "Westerners" are 10% of the world's population and homosexuals are a minority of 10% within then I don't wonder that they need draconian "hate speech" laws to protect their revolution as it totters along.

-Are we seriously quoting the U.N as a moral authority? ...please, spare me.
I quote the convention on genocide often but we all know there's not a damn thing that they'd do to prevent genocide and that they'll only act on crimes against humanity if it serves the Liberal War effort.

-Will someone address the issue of the "Gay" revolutionary manifesto?
Can you still stand there and lie to yourselves about it's intent, about the sexual "liberation" of children, about the intent to destroy the heterosexual family and any other "impediments" to the emancipation, by force of all people from sexual "oppression".

-Lexi, Suze, Ammonite, are any of you even homosexual or are you "Gays", perhaps you're straight dilettantes or you are using the "Gay" revolutionary movement to further your own agendas or career prospects?
Oh we never talk about that do we? The fact that there's good money to be made from supporting the revolution, that it's so much easier to claw your way to the top of whatever ladder you're on by threatening, undermining or blackmailing people who stand in your way if you're one of the righteous in crowd.
See the people who have the guts to genuinely stand up to Gay Revolutionary thuggery actually stand for something, they stand for love,honour and they hold certain ideals above and beyond the materialist world of the "gays" and their allies.
You stand against the world as separatists, we stand in solidarity with that higher ideal held by %99.9 of humanity.

Saltpetre, I too don't really care whether you like my views on same sex marriage or not, but if you join an Online Opinion Forum and make your views publicly known, then surely you would expect other posters to comment on your' comments - whether negatively or not?

You still haven't answered mine and Lexi's question as to exactly WHAT the legalizing of gay marriage would do to the 'institution' of heterosexual marriage?
How on earth could it be anyone else's business?

Jay Of Melbourne <"Lexi, Suze, Ammonite, are any of you even homosexual or are you "Gays", perhaps you're straight dilettantes or you are using the "Gay" revolutionary movement to further your own agendas or career prospects? "

Jay, you can't be serious? To be Gay and Homosexual is the same thing! As it happens, I am not Gay, and nor will I financially benefit in any way from the legalization of Homosexual Marriage -- LOL!

There would be so few actual Gay marriages if they were legal anyway, that I can't imagine how anyone could financially benefit from that act - unless they are family I suppose.

Can't a person have a view about a subject, even if they are not directly involved in the subject matter?
You seem to have plenty to say on the subject of Gay Marriage...
are you Gay (homosexual), Jay?

"You stand against the world as separatists, we stand in solidarity with that higher ideal held by %99.9 of humanity"

Who is WE Jay?
If this law would only affect such a small minority of people, then why stand against it?
Is it because of a religious objection?

Dear Suze,

Well said - and you've asked some pertinent questions.
Actually, I'm happily married with two children as you know,
and I also would not financially benefit in any way by supporting
same-sex marriage. I'm at the top of my profession in a job I love.
Now that you mention it though - I'm also beginning to wonder about
Jay and why he's so against same-sex marriages. Perhaps he's
not secure in himself or suffers from self-loathing, or as you
suspect - it could be a religious phobia. Perhaps Jay's a priest?
Perhaps he's Cardinal Pell?

cont'd ...

My apologies to Cardinal Pell.

It was wrong of me to suggest him, even if he is against gays.

I thought marriage was about love. Some humans actually love each other, truly, madly, deeply. QED

Saltpetre

Ego much. You are not the only homophobe to blight these pages.

JoM

Mostly heterosexual.

:D

Suze,
Jeeeez..I was just asking, I differentiate between "Gays" and homosexuals, "Gays" being subscribers to a revolutionary ideology, homosexuals being people who have an attraction to those of the same gender.
Since you ask, no I'm not homosexual and a person's sexuality is not an issue for me unless it's an issue for them.

Some more points (I work alone so I have a lot of time to think).

-Chris Berg and, I believe Rodney Croome favour the idea of abolishing the Marriage act altogether and removing the state from the issue of marriage, that's a proposal I could get behind.
See as I've said I'm suspicious of a movement that wants legislation in their favour, laws have to be enforced and since this is a controversial move there would most likely have to be new enforcement procedures involved.
I think it'd be a pretty sad state of affairs if we had any more "enforcement", ie,the use of force anywhere near the institution of marriage, it's bad enough as it is.

- We hear a lot of words to the effect of "Gay, Bi, Straight...who cares?"and "Why should anyone care if Gays marry". Well I do care about the people in my community, and so should everyone else.
I do care if people around me are happy and fulfilled in their relationships, I don't support the promotion of a "Butt out cos we're Gay" attitude, maybe more marriages in general would prosper if neighbours did poke their nose in once in a while and ask "Everything OK?". That goes double for Men, I don't suppose the rates of depression and suicide among homosexual men are lower than for heterosexuals, we all know that Men need to talk more and that social isolation can be fatal.
What about a new slogan "I don't mind what you are, but I care about how you are"

Ammonite.
Traditionally marriage has been understood to be primarily concerned with reproduction, love, social standing and religious custom being relegated to the "other attributes" column.
I read an interesting blog post last year on this issue, (don't ask me who wrote it). The author was a "queer" advocate who was skeptical of the whole marriage debate on the basis that monogamy and homosexuals, especially of the male kind are incompatible, hi words were "Where you have Gay men you have infidelity".
It's a point that needs to be raised and it gives weight to the idea of civil contracts which set the parameters of a relationship according to the wishes of the couple, it'd be a good option for a lot of heterosexual couples too.

Ammonite,

I am not, nor ever have been, a homophobe. I am hetero, but have no problem with any individual's sexual preference - as long as it is consensual and does not involve coercion, pedophilia or incest (or other morally repugnant predilections). (You may call me "straight".)

However, from my point of view there are too many who uphold "flexible" or no values or moral fortitude - such is the "modern" condition. (And, I mean heteros as much as gays in this.)

Suze,

Lexi quite rightly notes the changing nature (and deterioration) of marriage in our society. For me, this is a matter of regret, not of celebration. Your, and Lexi's, proposal is that adding gay union to this crumbling institution would be logical, and would not contribute further to that deterioration. This is where I disagree. Marriage is meant to mean something more than "union". Any intrinsic benefit lost to gay couples by not having their partnership recognised as "marriage" is unfortunate, but I believe maintenance of the fundamental ideals of marriage outweighs this consideration.

Our society involves people of both persuasions living together long term, or as de-factos, as well as in marriage, and with many of these relationships producing or involving children. As a conservative individual I continue to believe in marriage, and in the stability and security it should be offering to the children of such unions. If offering "marriage" to gay couples, as distinct from "legal union" would enhance the certainty of the adequate provision for children, then I could see a benefit. Otherwise, I can see no real benefit from expanding my conservative view of the concept of marriage.

If the children of a gay union would be negatively impacted by the absence of a document of "marriage", I might have cause to reconsider my position. However, I have no information that this could be the case.

Lexi, watch out for that bolt of lightening after your comment re Cardinal Pell... :)

Ammonite "Mostly heterosexual" ... hmmmm... interesting!

Saltepetre and Jay of Melbourne- I think we have all said how we feel on this subject... and never the twain shall meet!

See you all another thread.
Cheers,
Suze.

Ah, c'mon Suze.
Is this about reform or is it about change?
They're not the same thing, if the marriage act is reformed expect a movement to abolish it.
There is no such thing as "rights" in a revolution, in this particular struggle Liberty is tied up in knots by Liberalism.
The Twain are met and one is strangling the other.

Saltpetre

If you are not homophobic, why such opposition to people who love each other formalising their relationship via marriage?

Personally, I don't see marriage as the right choice for me, but I am free to marry if I wish. I do not see my personal views of marriage as being applicable to everyone else, people have the right to choose marriage if they want, regardless of sex or sexual preference.

In summary, Saltpetre, don't piss on my leg and tell me its just raining (thanks be to Judge Judy).

JoM

Would I win a bet if you were also NOT in favour of 'racial' intermarriage, for example caucasian woman having children with a negroid male?

Suze

I prefer men, but have had some major crushes on women. I believe that sexuality can be rather fluid for some people. Generally speaking bi-sexual people annoy just about everyone, you'd think gays and lesbians would be more tolerant but they turn out to be just as biased as hetereosexuals in many aspects.

Ammonite,

I will respond to your question with a question. Do you think we should alter every law or the Constitution itself to accommodate every minority viewpoint? What will you want next - to legalise pedophilia? Heroin? Meth? Ice? Cocaine? (I figure I already know your view on marijuana.)

Not everyone wants to conform to normative standards or mores, so, do you expect all responsible people to just drop to the lowest common denominator?

You have pushed by button, so yes, I have no problem with gays, I just draw the line at recognising gay unions as "marriage". If that is homophobic, then, Ok, I will be one from now on.

Ok, I'm conservative, and no, I don't like Bob Brown as a politician, although as an environmentalist he was a very solid citizen.

I am for the majority view on sex, marriage, kindness to animals and care for the environment, and I don't have a great deal of time for those who just want to have their cake and eat it to. I would be harsher on welfare and on criminal law if I had my way, and I do believe in the death penalty. What else do you want to know?

At the end of this, I even think I'm beginning not to like women, but I am not one to tar all with the same brush.

Ammonite, I'm not Caucasian, ask an Armenian, a Chechen or a Georgian that question if you want an opinion.
I'm White.
If someone wants brown children then they're clearly not White are they?
So I really couldn't care less.
White women and Men have White babies, non White couples have non White babies, that's the world as we know it.
Unless of course you're saying racial identity is only about skin colour, which is shaky ground, ask Andrew Bolt.
You're also trying to paint me, along with Saltpetre as something we're not.
I'm asking basic questions about the "Gay Marriage" or "Equal Love" movement, which, as we know is made up largely of non homosexuals.
See reform is not something one "demands", it's something that is granted by a higher authority.
Change is a demand but it can simply be effected by..well...changing things.
Are the "gays" just Liberal reformers going cap in hand to their leaders or authentic agents of change?
As for affection...yeah they're affecting plenty of things from all over the activist spectrum (boom boom), it's not really doing much good though.
To most people this is a trivial issue anyway.

Dear Saltpetre,

The following website may clarify a few things:

http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/case.htm

The Case for Equal Marriage.

The article states:

"No group of Australians should be systematically excluded from any legal institution let alone one as central to our society as legal marriage. It must be open to all Australians regardless of their sexual orientation. Some day, same-sex couples in Australia will have the legal right to marry. That is inevitable. As with every major human rights advance, from the abolition of slavery to allowing women to vote, future generations will look back and wonder how anyone could have opposed such a basic human right."

It's an interesting article - well worth a read.

...and in the interests of balance, the following:
http://www.marriageresourcesforclergy.com/site/Articles/articles011.htm

It's important to state that serious activists opposed to homosexual marriage produce next to no research or information themselves, all their facts and figures come from the work of either gay advocacy groups or other reputable academic studies.
The fact that I sourced this from a particular site should not be taken as an indication that I necessarily share their viewpoint, as I said, balance.

Lexi,

From your link:

"The exclusion of same-sex relationships from marriage and the invention of a different word to describe our unions represents gays and lesbians, and our relationships in particular, as deviant and abnormal, and as less worthy than heterosexual unions."

(Jay's link tends to confirm that gay union is less worthy.)

"In Australia, same-sex couples, and all gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons for that matter, still suffer under the weight of stigma and prejudice." "These attitudes of prejudice are reinforced – and given State sanction - by discriminatory laws."

"Civil unions can provide some or all of the rights and obligations of civil marriage. AME has no objection to civil unions as a supplement to marriage, but as long as we are denied the equal right to marry, alternative regimes do not fix the discrimination."

My response: Gays having the right to "marriage" can do little if anything to alter societal prejudice, but rather, "gays" pushing for "marriage" is far more likely to alienate many more than it will impress.

Extracts from Jay's link: (Tend to strongly support my conviction that gay union is far from "marriage".)

"Married Couples
· A 2001 National Center for Health Statistics study on marriage and divorce statistics reported that 66 percent of first marriages last ten years or longer, with fifty percent lasting twenty years or longer."

"Male Homosexual Relationships
The 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census surveyed the lifestyles of 7,862 homosexuals. Of those involved in a "current relationship," only 15 percent describe their current relationship as having lasted twelve years or longer, with five percent lasting more than twenty years."

"Married couples
· A nationally representative survey of 884 men and 1,288 women published in the Journal of Sex Research found that 77 percent of married men and 88 percent of married women had remained faithful to their marriage vows.

· A 1997 national survey appearing in The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States found that 75 percent of husbands and 85 percent of wives never had sexual relations outside of marriage."
TBC>

Lexi (Extracts from Jay's link, Cont'd):

"Male Homosexuals
. The Dutch study of partnered homosexuals, which was published in the journal AIDS, found that men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year.

· Bell and Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having one thousand or more sex partners."

"Commitment" in Male Homosexual Couples
Even in those homosexual relationships in which the partners consider themselves to be in a committed relationship, the meaning of "committed" or "monogamous" typically means something radically different than in heterosexual marriage.

· A Canadian study of homosexual men who had been in committed relationships lasting longer than one year found that only 25 percent of those interviewed reported being monogamous."

"According to McWhirter and Mattison, most homosexual men understood sexual relations outside the relationship to be the norm and viewed adopting monogamous standards as an act of oppression."

"While the rate of fidelity within marriage cited by these studies remains far from ideal, there is a significant difference between the negligible lifetime fidelity rate cited for homosexuals and the 75 to 90 percent cited for married couples. This indicates that even "committed" homosexual relationships display a fundamental incapacity for the faithfulness and commitment that is axiomatic to the institution of marriage."

"LEVEL OF COMMITMENT IN HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS

If homosexuals and lesbians truly desired the same kind of commitment signified by marriage, then one would expect them to take advantage of the opportunity to enter into civil unions or registered partnerships, which grant them legal recognition as well as the legal rights of marriage. However, surprisingly few homosexuals and lesbians choose to enter into such legally recognized unions where such arrangements are available, indicating that such couples do not share the same view of commitment as typified by married couples."

My conclusion: The above speaks for itself - gay union is far from marriage, and "gay" is far from "straight".

"To most people this is a trivial issue anyway".

Clearly, with 12 posts on the subject in 4 days, Jay isn't one of them.

Saltpetre

Obviously going around in circles here.

You claim: >> My response: Gays having the right to "marriage" can do little if anything to alter societal prejudice, but rather, "gays" pushing for "marriage" is far more likely to alienate many more than it will impress. <<

Denying people full citizenship which includes marriage if they so choose, is more alienating than including people. It creates further division between people. Like locking up little children because they arrive in Australia on a boat - that's alienating as well.

Marriage isn't for everyone, but it is a choice for all except gay and lesbian people.

Current legislation discriminates as Lexi has clearly stated.

It is not making a 'special' law for a minority group, but SSM is including people to the same opportunities to life that straights have. Like the right of all children to education, or for people to find employment and not be discriminated against for sex, race or religion (or lack thereof). In fact we do make 'special' laws for a minority; Christian organisations are permitted to employ only other Christians.

Not long ago blacks were not permitted to marry whites. It is the same kind of discrimination.

As for JoM - I have no idea what you are going on about. I suppose you would think I am 'white' simply because I have white skin, despite my genealogy. And it is no surprise to find that you object to SSM, you have made that very clear.

Ammonite.
The point is that the "Gay" revolutionary movement are portraying this as an issue of "equality" when it isn't, homosexuality and heterosexuality are completely different and have different lifestyles attached to them.
At it's most basic level the fact is that, barring medical complications a heterosexual couple can produce children "straight out of the box", as it were,they don't need the intervention of others, homosexuals can't, therefore there is no "equality".
You can build up all the straw men and apply all the social constructs you can devise to this issue but the fact remains that the primary reason for marriage among the spectrum of human tribes is procreation, always has been, always will be.
As a man who's been married for 22 years I think I'm in a somewhat stronger position on this issue than you are.
In my experience people who marry for "love" don't last long, true love grows within a marriage over time and the arrival of children is the ultimate test.
Homosexuals don't understand what marriage really means, they can't, because they'll never experience it in the same way as heterosexual couples.

JoM

As a heterosexual male married for 22 years to a woman(?), you claim same sex couples have completely different relationships?

How would you know? At least I have experienced both and in both relationships love, respect and friendship as well as common interests are very important.

Interesting that you don't believe love is important in a relationship. You are revealing yourself to be very ignorant on many issues.

Come on folks be realistic. Didn't you go to school and study history.
Things change, even with religious beliefs, civilisation advances, so too same-sex marriage will be just a hiccup in world's history.

Look at the furor by religious groups when ordainment of women as priests was suggested. But look at things now. Some religions have already advanced. The same went with inter-racial and cross-religion marrianges. No matter how much you protest the majority of the population is accepting the introduction of legislation to allow for same-sex marriages.

There are ancient groups that became hysterical when the sun disappeared in the sky but it was only an eclipse, and life continued as normal.

Ammonite,

See Jay's link.

The institution of marriage is designed to foster and promote societal and relationship respect, responsibility and stability, and so provides particular safeguards and security for the individuals and children involved. It may not be perfect, and some people still can, and do, misuse this institution, but the ideals, objectives and principles involved are most worthy of pursuit and promotion. A marriage partnership needs to be both earned and protected, it is a "life commitment", not just a matter of "love", and certainly not a "convenience".

Marriage is not a "right", it must be earned - just as respect and trust must be earned.

Obviously we see marriage differently, and so it seems do a majority of gays. Only 4.5% of male homosexual relationships surveyed lasted more that 20 years (monogamously?); as against 50+% of traditional marriages. The statistics on monogamous gay relationships were compelling - with virtually zero faithfulness to the "committed" partner, even during the first year! U.S. stats, but why should we expect anything different in Oz?

The "gay" contention appears to be that marriage is simply a sign of a "bond", and a right, irrespective of intensity of commitment - but the evidence suggests that gay relationships in the main just DO NOT LAST! So, gays would be happy to tie up the family law courts with masses of extra "marital" disagreements, just to prove "equality"? However, gays do not demonstrate equality - not in commitment, monogamy, or longevity, not by a very, very long margin.

Adultery is to be abhorred, but in gay relationships it is generally expected and pursued, vigorously by all accounts. Never the twain!

I am no priest, and you, Ammonite, are obviously no saint, and we certainly lead very different lives, and have different "prejudices". I was in a single faithful marriage for 20 years, until my wife died. One five year (and faithful) relationship since.

You and I are different fish; and yours and my view of societal responsibility are poles apart.

I have never been unfaithful in any of my serious long term relationships.

There are many long term gay and lesbian relationships where partners remain monogamous to each each. And many hetero relationships which fail monogamy - divorce does not indicate whether a partner has been unfaithful or not.

Just who are you to state who has the 'right' to marry and who does not?

You're no saint either, yet unlike myself (the only thing I claim to be is human), you presume to judge. For it is how we treat each other that matters not how we stick to anachronistic rules. Neither you nor JoM treat people who hold different views with any acceptance or tolerance.

Finally, I don't give a damn what you do in bed as long as you are not hurting someone against their will.

Live and let live, human.

Pressed the post it key too soon.

>> Marriage is not a "right", it must be earned - just as respect and trust must be earned. <<

Quick question Salt,

Apart from being born heterosexual how did YOU earn the "right" to marry?

Was there an exam?

Marriage 101?

"Respect and trust". Who starts first? What if no-one starts trusting or respecting?

We do seem to be going around in circles in this discussion. I think that we'll simply have to agree to disagree on this subject.

The facts remain one size does not fit all when it comes to the institution of marriage and family. There are already a number of existing variations to traditional marriage and family arrangements, such as single-parent families, cohabitation, serial monogamy, reconstituted families, childless couples, communes, "open" marriage, gay couples and gay parent families, and remaining single. This range is being tolerated in our society in the context of growing individualism of our society and changing life-style circumstances.

Family patterns vary widely. All these patterns can be analyzed in terms of their variation along basic dimensions such as the number of partners, partner preference, residence pattern, authority relationships, descent and inheritance, and family form. Blanket statements are no longer applicable. Industrialisation and urbanisation have been accompanied by a worldwide transformation of the family and as a result of marriage. Therefore what is happening is that our society is increasingly tolerating a variety of marriage and family styles. A hallmark of our society is its economic and cultural diversity, combined with a highly developed sense of individualism. In this environment, people tend to make decisions about marriage, divorce, abortion, child-rearing, and the like in terms of what they, personally, want - rather in terms of traditional moralities, obligations to kin, or any other personal pressures that previous generations unquestioningly accepted.

Pursuing their own vision of self-fulfillment, or responding to the social and economic predicament in which they find themselves, many people are modifying the family/marriage system to suit their individual needs. This with time will be recognised formally whether we approve of it or not.

Aquarius.
Again, you prove my point, how indeed would I know about something which I can't experience?
Homosexual relationships are not the same as heterosexual, so no equality.
I agree with Lexi in that this debate is going nowhere, we have one side pushing formal equality and one testing substantive equality, there's not even a consensus on what we're actually arguing about.

Lexi,

Yes, circles, with no real chance of agreeing or of changing each others' views.

Lexi: "Therefore what is happening is that our society is increasingly tolerating a variety of marriage and family styles."

Tolerating, yes; strenuously embracing, I don't think so. It is still my feeling that a great many people (could I possibly venture, vast majority), would support the "conventional" view of marriage. What proportion of women do you think would wish to get married; what sort of marriage would they prefer?

Some friends of mine decided to marry (second for both) after about 15 years as a couple. None of us looked down on them for living together, but all of us were overjoyed for them when they decided to finally tie the knot. Their choice, no pressure, no urging.

I feel sorry for couples who live together for many years, and raise children but either never marry, or marry later on. I feel sorry for the children too, even though there is no stigma.

Ammonite considers me judgmental, but I consider that I just exercise judgment, to the best of my ability. In my judgment I try to employ ethics, values, morals and ideals, but not ill-will to my fellow man. Judgment is a matter of standards, and I do not look to loose or flexible morals or ethics in determining those standards.

The best I can do for gays etc is to empathise with their predicament. I would not like to be in their shoes, and if I was gay I would choose to be asexual.

Do I think gay "marriage" would denigrate conventional marriage, yes. Why? Because I think it can only offer to lower the ideals and expectations of "marriage" for millions of conventional couples, both now and into the future.

Ammonite,

"I" didn't earn the right to marry, "WE" earned the right - through demonstrated long term unconditional and faithful commitment to each other. We did not enter marriage lightly, nor dishonestly, nor inadvisedly. Was our union ordained by God, not really, but it was celebrated by a Minister of the Cloth.

Dear Saltpetre,

Our society is made up of more than just "conventional couples" - and that's the whole point. Anyway, for me this topic has now run its course.

Me too, atypical relationships form whatever the legal constraints, where there's a will there's a way.
I can't see widespread acceptance of a re definition of a marriage on account of (possibly) a few thousand people who may want to take up the offer.
It's, as I said a trivial issue when all is said and done, what's more it takes the gaze off the other "projects" that flock of warmongering vultures currently roosting on parliament hill are cooking up.