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.