Rizla and Rihan ... Thank you. So nice to have calmer heads ... and research! We have similar laws in Victoria which allow churches to discriminate in areas where it conflicts with the practice of their religion and rituals, like hiring particular genders or religions.

We are not the UK or US, so none of those arguments hold any holy water. I assume very few same sex couples want to be married in a church. A majority of weddings now take place outside of churches and even out of doors.

Most couples want a ceremony that focuses on them. They want to face their friends, not turn their backs on them. They want their union witnessed by family and friends, not imaginary friends.

Marriage under the Australian Marriage Act is a binding legal contract. The ceremony to seal that contract should be about the couple, not religious dogma.

Marriage is not about procreation or gender. It is the formation of a small business of love, with two shareholders.

The Australian Marriage Act is quite a good document and has stood for 50 years. It's just that someone tightened the bolts on the definition of "marriage is between a man and a woman" a little too hard ... we need a bit of legislative WD-40!

"Statistics on divorce only prove the lack of commitment and prejudice of people in human relationships. It does not undermine the ideals of a good relationship of husband and wife and its input into family."

Posted by Philo, Thursday, 29 September 2011 10:46:22 AM

40-5% Divorce Rate smashes both your assertions, Philo.

Philo, your post yesterday - Thursday, 29 September 2011 7:04:29pm - used too many negative premises to provide a valid or sound conclusion. Besides, plenty of homosexuals a biological parents.

Thanks for that Rhian, and in some sense I do take your point about being seen to be antagonistic, however I disagree with your interpretation of the article as "balanced". Towards the end you will find Rev Kurti subtly mocking the Greens et al by taking their intentions in bad faith, viz "What is surprising, therefore, is that supporters of gay marriage now tell us that more people actually want to get married. The very institution widely dismissed as irrelevant ("It's just a piece of paper!") and roundly mocked is now top of the 'must-have' list for a significant minority of the Australian people". Trouble is, supporters of gay marriage have never "dismissed" the actual idea of marriage as irrelevant - they were merely saying that marriage is rendered irrelevant if it only applies to heterosexual couples. That is, he's putting words in their mouths.

Unfortunately it seems that conservative commentators in Australia, instead of explaining their positions properly, tend to stick to their "tradition" of conducting their arguments by positioning their own ideas as a priori gospel, and deliberately misinterperting the actions of the "other side". In responding to such arguments, I think it is incumbent on us not to get caught up in their way of doing things, but to call them on what they are doing by pointing out that the only way they could possibly think what they say they think is that it is a result of their "anxiety and repression". It's not an ad hominem - it's simple logical analysis.

But it doesn't have to be that way - and I actually think it's quite important to have an intelligent, informed debate between advocates of all persuasions on issues such as this. Oliver Hartwich for example often has some very sensible things to say, And you only need go to one of the CIS seminars and observe his discomfiture and embarrassment when wrapping up after a presentation from one of his colleagues to realise that he wishes they would be more sensible too.

For all of you good folk posting on this discussion, is it really any skin off your noses that gay people have as much right to have a legal life long partner? Would it not be better for all of us to mind our own business?, it is all very well to be smug and comfortable in a so-called conventional marriage, but why would you oppose people of the same sex wanting to spend their lives together. It should matter more that two people, whatever their sexual persuasion, are happy to legally spend their lives together, besides which it is none of anybody's business. So when you are sitting there, all fat and happy that your union of marriage is legal, spare a thought for those of the same sex are being discriminated against, just because they want a legal marriage with legal rights...to hell with Churches and there narrow minded conventions.
NSB

Individual
The question of infertile couples is not pointless to those who argue that the “point” of marriage is to raise children. There are Christians who believe that married couples who choose not to have children are not fulfilling their duty.

Diver Dan
How do you define “normal”? Homosexuality has existed in every culture and every age of human history, so far as we can tell. It may be less common than heterosexuality, but it is no more abnormal than left-handedness or shortness. In my view healthy social cohesion is undermined, not promoted, by discriminating against minorities in the interests of conformity and uniformity.

Sam Jandwich
Yes, there is a bit of a dig at the Greens in the article, and trying to summarise both sides of a debate can seem like putting words in other people’s mouths. I suspect none of us is capable of complete balance and impartiality, but I think Peter makes a reasonable effort at summarising the underlying sources of the disagreements between the two sides.

Dear Noisy Scrub Bird.

Most postings here have been in support. Also, I think it's not a question of supporting gays getting married so much as removing impediments to total marriage equality.

Bear in mind, marriage in Australia is a binding legal contract between two parties. You will also now have the right to a bitter and acrimonious divorce! Welcome to our world.