Who are the registered parents of a child born of one lesbian or homosexual parent? The child needs to know his genetic history, someone who has not contributed to his / her genetics cannot be considered as the birth father or mother. Fatherhood or motherhood is not an emotional attachment but a biological fact. As of children born of an Indian surrogate mother to a Caucasian father is obviously not Caucasian.

Contrary to Don Edgar's article the family rights of such a child is denied for their adult pleasure. They continually talk about gay rights without consideration for genetic heritage of a child. They trade cash for children for their sentimental pleasure.

He states, "There is no reason why this should not hold with homosexual couples, but the law currently does not recognize the rights of gay partners, or the rights of children, who may be born of one natural partner, with a donor parent, or even a surrogate parent".

Excellent article. If only all contributions to this debate were so well written and argued - with actual evidence rather than assertions with no basis in fact.

Don Edgar's appeal to some historical tribal cultures for multiple sexual practises on a wife as evidence for marriage change in our society; he does not think very highly of women and their equal rights of choice, but rather as useable commodies for having his children. Obviously a very selish and self absorbed person.
What is going to be his attitude to a girl brought up in his two men home not having a natural live in mother?

Marriage is more than the love between two people.
Marriage is a public statement not a private action.
Marriage is more than what people do behind closed doors.
Marriage is more than a union.

If marriage is more than these things then what is it that differentiates it?

Marriage, like we see the same understanding as used by the property market (see international valuation standards for confirmation - marriage value), it is the potential that a union can bring. We see this potential in real and de facto marriages.

Same sex unions can involve love, but it will never have the potential that a male and female union can have in either a de facto (in fact) or real marriage

Marriage is a word that speaks of potential, whether that potential is realised is another thing.

Unions don’t necessarily give any extra potential or synergy greater than the sum of the two. A union of two people of the same gender has no potential to create anything greater than themselves, from within the union.

Marriage is not just a legal union but something “more” than a union.

Marriage has always acknowledged the difference in sexes that make up a couple. Extremely rare exceptions to this may be found in history, but again should exceptions make the rule?

The exception should not be the rule.

If a person wants to be able to have their partner recognised in their will, great! If a person wants their partner to be at their bedside in hospital, great! You don’t need to redefine marriage to make these changes.

What people do in the privacy of their homes is their business. This again is not marriage and can’t be used to support a change in legislation.

These and other issues are separate to legislating to redefine the current and historical view of marriage

"The Churches (and Australia's Labor Government) have to accept that marriage serves secular needs, not spiritual goals."

No they don't. They don't have to accept anything. They can go on denying the obvious, making ridiculous and inconsistent claims, and disappearing rapidly into ineffectual obscurity as more and more of their supporters give up on them and take refuge in the real world. In fact that loud sucking sound you hear is the churches (and the Labor Government) going down the gurgler, clutching their cherished ideologies.

It can't be over soon enough.

@Philo, you could say the same of the children of heterosexual parents who are adopted at birth, children created from donor sperm and children where a parent is unknown or leaves.

I was adopted as a child and met my natural family as an adult. I can assure you that the bond between myself and my adopted parents and brother is much stronger than anything I will ever have with my natural parents or siblings. Biology does not make someone a good parent.

Children and marriage are not synonymous. Heterosexual couples marry without ever having children, and have children without ever getting married. Hetersexuals with children remarry and successfully create new families where one parent is not the biological parent.

The fact is that gay parents can and do have children, whether they are married or not. The real question is - do we afford these children of gay parents the rights and protections of marriage? Or do we deny it to them due to the opinion of some that these children should never have been born? Let's deal with reality and grant the protections to these families that marriage will provide.

@FreeThinker states that same sex marriage can never be marriage because "A union of two people of the same gender has no potential to create anything greater than themselves, from within the union."

This is clearly irrelevant because:

A union of two people of the opposite gender aged over 60 years old has no potential to create anything greater than themselves, from within the union. Yet they are permitted to marry, and we recognise it as marriage.

A union of two people of the opposite gender where the woman has had a hysterectomy has no potential to create anything greater than themselves, from within the union. Yet they are permitted to marry, and we recognise it as marriage.

A union of two people of the opposite gender who are unable to have sex due to accident or injury has no potential to create anything greater than themselves, from within the union. Yet they are permitted to marry, and we recognise it as marriage.

Your argument is illogical.

Marriage is a word meaning a union or contract between a man and a woman. Just like brass is a combination of copper and zinc.

If homosexual couples want a legally binding union, thats fine but, come up with a word/s for that union.

Don't try to pinch a word that is already in use and all know the meaning of.

Heres a suggestion. What about Malunion and Femalunion?

Any other suggestions?

GlendaSinging,
The parents of orphaned children have not been deliberatly placed as orphans as a optium choice. Other cases are mere exceptions such as infertility or interferrence of the natural.

Quoting exceptions does not establish normality. One male parent in a childs life is not normal parenting. A mother who has carried a child for nine months and given birth, is very calous to give her child up at birth for two men to raise. Is this the society we desire? The communists tried this 60 years ago - a total failure. Children need a mothers breast love, especially infant boys.

I beeleve dat we shuld be aalowwed to mary our cussin

Author seems to be having a bet either way, on one hand saying that it is the State's responsibility to regulate marriage, but on the other saying that legal recognition is not the same as moral approval.

He has given no reason why the State should be in the business of regulating private sexual relationships in the first place.

Neither Church nor State ever claimed that marriage is constituted by the act of the Church or State - both register for their own purposes marriage constituted by the commitment of the parties.

So it is not true that it is the State's responsibility to regulate marriage or private sexual relationships. The only reason the issue of gay "marriage" arises is because of the gay rights political movement. If instead of that, there had been in recent decades a political movement for polygamy, or child sex, or any other form of human sexuality, then all the same arguments would apply for all the same reasons.

The fact is, State involvement can only ever provoke conflict over who is in and who is out, the decision on which can never be anything but arbitrary. Indeed, there was no more reason for State registration of marriage than there is now for State registration of gay marriage.

Until the advocates of gay marriage acknowledge the equal right of polygamists to State recognition for all the same reasons, the rest of us can be excused for regarding their protestations as so much self-interested and unprincipled nonsense.

The only principled solution is to abolish government regulation of sexual relationships, including:
- the Marriage Act
- the Property Relationships Act
- the Family Provision Act
- the regulation of legitimacy.

I'm in complete agreement with Peter Hume. I have also never seen anyone even attempt to refute this line of reasoning. Anyone here want to try?

Marriage was originally an agreement between two families, like a form of contract.
When the State assumed responsibility to enforce it under Law, the Church was also given the "franchise" by adding the fear of God into the agreement in the hope it would strengthen it.

It's only real purpose is to strengthen individual rights - property and otherwise - and could probably be redefined into another form.

Meanwhile, why do all those heterosexual couples keep giving birth to gay children?

Is Peter Hume expounding the virtues of uncontrolled sex as one night stands with any willing partner, no responsibility accepted?

Where does this leave mums with several children from different untraceable fathers?

Sounds like social anarchy based on primitives law of the jungle.

An educated society needs formal structures to function within to allocate responsibility and care of the vunerable.

I'm with Peter Hume on the issue of polygamy. I totally enjoyed the SBS series "Big Love' and can see that this type of marriage could be functional.

But child sex is different; the problem being to determine at what point a child becomes competent to participate equally in a sexual relationship with an adult. Perhaps this depends on the community and in a simple primitive community, like in the South of the USA, where Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cussin a few decades ago, puberty may be the appropriate age.

If it was only sex that was the issue, puberty would be fine but when there is property at stake a child would need some protection. And it is the protection of property and power, and the desire to keep these things in the family that has historically been an important influence in our assumptions about what marriage is and what it is for.

Not sure about sexual relationships with animals. I'd want Peter Singer's opinion about this. But I heard on the internet, that some bogan married his dog in a park somewhere in Qld a while ago.

Philo,

Does society make laws based on the values of the majority or do the majority act based on the word of the law?

If it wasn't for government regulation of sexual activity then would be you be having sex with children? animals?

People will continue to act how they wish to act, so don't pretend that the government can do anything about it. Relationships between consenting adults are none of their business.

Stezza,

Laws were made for society by its leaders as determined by nature and social order. Where principles are established i.e. 'girls do not fall pregnant before pubity', such should not be married before or have sex. Marriage is for procreation, love and security.

Q, "If it wasn't for government regulation of sexual activity then would be you be having sex with children? animals?" This question is from a perverted mind vindicating as acceptable adultry and promiscurity.

Philo your constant interest in sexual activity, indicates a need for counselling!!

If "Laws were made for society by its leaders as determined by nature and social order"

Does this mean that laws should stay constant throughout time, or change with the social order? Who decides what natures laws say (evolution?) or even what social order is? What exactly is that by the way?

Stezza,
Obviously you are a lawless and undisciplined porson, as any behaviour is acceptable in your eyes.

Lol Stezza :)
Philo, I think you have met your match!

I really enjoyed reading this well written article. It made some very important arguments for allowing homosexual marriages.

If we are already allowing marriages to be performed by non-religious celebrants in non-religious settings, then I don't see why Homosexual marriage should be so pilloried by some religious people taking the high moral ground.

Homosexuality is not a crime, whereas bigamy, bestiality and paedophilia is a crime, so I don't see why we should even be discussing how allowing gays to marry will lead to these other groups of people being allowed to marry.

Don Edgar <"Finally, it must be noted that in those countries that have already recognized gay marriage, the evidence is clear: it does not undermine social morality or lead to undesirable effects."

Enough said...

Fact: It takes two to three "biological" parents to create a baby - being ovum and sperm "donors" plus possible third party "incubator". (At least until we get into artificially providing these components.) To these we may have to add one, two, or possibly more, "adoptee" parents, plus godparents and extended family members having some responsibility for care of the child.

Now, in law, from the article, there appears to be recognition of the role and responsibilities of only one or two of these parties - the "parent(s)". This appears somewhat unfair, and possibly unjust.

In our complex and dynamic "society" there appears to be need to provide for up to five names as "parents" on a birth certificate - being male and female contributors and female incubator plus one or two (adoptee or consignee) "parents" - with allowance for up to four of these to be left blank - in the case of anonymous sperm and ovum donors, anonymous incubator, and only a single "parent").

(One day we may even get into DNA proving of biological origin.)

"Marriage" does not seem to play much of a part in this, and current law appears to be deficient in providing adequate guarantee for the care and upbringing of the child, or for the rights of the "parents" - irrespective of whether the child is going into a traditional, de-facto, gay or single parent "family" unit.

My contention therefore, is that all procreation would have to be covered by a legal contract to ensure adequate guarantees of care for the child and the rights of "parents" and other parties involved.

Gets complicated, doesn't it. No wonder then that there is so much support for traditional hetero "marriage" - and IMHO rightly so, and I doubt that a referendum or plebiscite would find otherwise.

Marriage is a state of mind more than anything else.

Gay "marriage"? Get yourself a contract, and stop whinging.

There is no need for any regulation more than the law of contract provides. Women with children to multiple fathers? Law of contract. But if you can't be bothered obtaining agreement about your own reproductive responsibilities, why should everyone else in the population be forced into a one-size-fits-all monogamous heterosexual straitjacket?

Yes Peter Hume ,I agree.Neither the state nor the legal system should have power over personal relationships.So why do we need Gay Marriage or even heterosexual marriage ordained by the state? What people decide in a religious and spiritual sense is entirely up to them.Get big Govt out of our lives.

http://www.henrymakow.com/uns_planned_pedophilia.html

This is what the GLBT international closet communist movement is going for now/next.

No australian child will be safe until these people are stopped.

Whats the opposite to a "GLBT International Closet Communist" ?
Answer "Bigot International Closet Facist" !!

Formersnag
"This story is really about preventing parents from protecting their children from sexual predators - including the State."

Sexual predators? So you're talking about people who actually eat the flesh of children?

Of course Formersnag does and could not mean that, Peter Hume.

But the question of children (people whom do not understand government, sexual preference, nor the political freedom your hold so dear) is high in my mind on this matter, none the less.

Children in the absence of science in the past, have not required parents of a same sexual preference to exist for their benefit.

I do not think that children require them now, and believe it is clear, that the interested parties here, are the same sex communities.

Having said that ; if another interest group such as a religious order for example decided to lobby for access to children, would not the possibility arise, that the religion is doing this to grow it's community ?, or some other activity not necessarily in the best interest of the children.

Is it true to say ?, that in your logic, such a circumstance should be allowed to occur in the absence of Gov't intervention, rules or guidelines ?, PH.

Same sexual preference, in the absence of scientific intervention, has been a childless or descendent free preference historically and I'm afraid, in nature.

And as for what harm changing this could do ?, that remains to be seen.

There is no harm in same-sex marriage. People should be allowed to marry whoever they want. It doesn't affect others whether if it's same-sex or not. Everyone has their own liking, no one should be discriminated on their sexuality.

What is wrong with same-sex marriages?
I don't see any problem at all.
People can't just prevent a marriage between a couple from loving each other just because they are the same gender.
Possessing attraction to someone of the same sex or opposite, really doesn't matter unless it is true love.

Children need a father and a mother in their upbringing. The Judeo-Christian basis for marriage is the best model for family living, even if we do live in a secular state with a division of church and State.
Also, Martin Luther was actually married, so I'm not quite sure where that particualr argument was leading to?

Same sex marriage has no harm, people are just scared of different people of the world. Same sex marriages mostly cause issues due to other people who hate people who are different. Same sex marriages should be allowed for the people.

Timothy N,
Heterosexual people do not hate and are not scared of homosexual persons. I have many acquaintances in my life who have chosen to live in same sex relationships. Several have already died of AIDS. That society hates you is merely your ill founded perception.

Society does not decide gender marriage it is human design of gender that discriminates what relationships naturally produce children. It is to do with natural human fertility only a man and a woman can mate to naturally produce children, which is the ordained state of marriage.

Marriage defines a state of human relationship and two persons of the same gender do not qualify. If one of the parties has children it has not been the product of the same sex relationship. If Gays want to publicly identify their relationship it is a blatant lie to call it marriage, as it is not a relationship between the two genders as husband and wife. To call their relationship marriage changes the meaning of the definition of the act between genders.

Men in many societies commit homosexual acts with each other but they do not call it marriage because they have a wife and children at home. Are they now to call their relationship a marriage or adultery?

Philo, you are right, and I back you up 100 percent.

We know what the formal bond or contract of "marriage" has stood for in the past, so how does the idea of same-sex marriage stack up? Or, have our expectations of marriage itself changed so much that it doesn't really matter anymore - legal ramifications aside?

Re child-raising: Same-sex couples can only have children by artificial means, or by adoption - but the same can and does apply to many traditional married couples. However, can a same-sex marriage be expected to satisfy the norm of stability and security warranted for the raising of children (and here let us compare with the average of traditional marriages)? Statistically the answer would have to be a resounding NO - because the incidence of cheating (adultery) and of "divorce" in same-sex couples is so much higher, and as the average duration of same-sex relationships is so much shorter. Can this then be expected to provide a suitably wholesome and stable family environment? Unlikely - and could at best equate with some single parent families.

Of course many traditional marriages do not involve children, but are still considered valuable to societal structure and values. Can same-sex marriage also contribute positively to societal coherence or values? Possibly in a minority of cases. Could such a minority contribution warrant overthrow of the traditional marriage concept? I think not.

De-facto relationships are often stable and long-term, though not always of course, but the odds for same-sex relationships are on average fairly poor.

The assessment? To reduce "marriage" to the lowest denominator - that is to be representative of the poorest of marriages, de-facto relationships or single-parent family situations - would be to reduce the concept and contribution of marriage to a nonentity, to the status of merely an historical footnote.

Why then is the divorce rate so high, if opposite sex marriage is so sacosanct !

Kipp,
The reason for divorce is because people marry immaturely, lack common goals, are basically selfish, expect marriage to be a lifelong honeymoon, lack the commitment and singular devotion to each other for better or worse.

I believe that marriage is a bond between 2 lovers that determines their relationships. Marriage is a choice that both of the lovers make and I believe there should not be laws limiting them to who they can and cannot marry. Same sex marriage has finally become legal in New York because of the majority of 53% of citizens agreeing to officially enable people of the same sex to get married. This has proven that society is modernising and people out there do want to get married to someone of the same-sex as them.

I think that same sex marriage is a choice and as Australia is a democracy the public should have the right to make that choice. If the majority is fine with smane sex masrriage then why wait?Julia Gillard should test this new plan in a few states or reigons seeing if it works then making it national.

The main negative aspect about same sex marriage must be the parents and who will be the rightful owner of their child. I believe that if there is a child then the married couple must be the rightful owners unless there are any further concerns when the 3rd person is involved which is highly unlikely.

Overall anyone should be able to marry whoever they wish without anyone stopping them.

suj
Marriage to be registered by the State is not a personal affair it becomes an affair of the State; to record Citizens and their offspring. It is a natural biological term meaning the coming together of a man and a woman in a natural sexual act. Affection between two persons is not a marriage and has no purpose to be recorded by the State. There are Civil laws that can cover property etc.

I love the article that's been written. I would feel sorry for the children who grew up with gay or lesbian parents. They would mostly get teased by other kids and have a hard time growing up with bullying and people looking down on them all the time.