MPs are elected to represent their constituencies, not their consciences and not their parties. In a genuine democracy the member for East Sydney would vote in accordance with the views of East Sydney. Since that obviously doesn't happen, and the majority of the occupants of Parliament simply fill seats and do as they are told, there seems to be no reason for their leaders to trust their individual judgement on this issue any more than they normally do on any other.

The whole purpose of democracy is to replace futile and subjective discussions over what is 'right' and 'wrong' with a mechanism that simply does what the majority of people want. And the majority of Australians clearly want gay marriage legalised.

Jon J

I frankly believe parliamentarians have more urgent issues at hand than to invest precious time in consideration of homosexuals perceived rights to share a matrimonial bed.

While I am personally pro marriage equality, it irritates me when hysterical and incorrect terminology is used.

Family law has changed so significantly, that de facto partnerships and civil unions have all the rights and obligations as a marriage contract, so much so that a marriage contract effectively puts a stamp on the relationship. This makes claims that marriage equality is a civil right is a little spurious.

I do think that eventually it will come to pass, but presently there is still a large section of the voters that have strong feelings on the issue. They typically reside in marginal constituents, and with a hung parliament, neither labor or the coalition are in the mood to alienate such a large chunk of swing voters.

In a decade or two most of these voters will no longer be with us, and we will look back and wonder what the fuss was about. Until then, expecting labor to drink from poisoned chalice is a little naive.

"The whole purpose of democracy is to replace futile and subjective discussions over what is 'right' and 'wrong' with a mechanism that simply does what the majority of people want. And the majority of Australians clearly want gay marriage legalised"

(1) It is not clear to me that the polling indicating said majority has been properly conducted, particularly with respect to the phrasing of questions.

(2) If it is true that the government should do what "the majority of people want", we should, for example, bring back capital punishment, as the majority of Australians clearly want it under certain circumstances - the Bali Bombers #1 being an example.

Try taking a poll shortly after a 5 year old blue-eyed, blond haired girl has been raped, tortured and murdered as to whether the perpetrator should be executed.

The vast majority of people want cheaper petrol, which can be provided by the government changing excise/taxation laws. Etc, Etc.

People seem to really care about this, from gay activists to churchies to the conservatives to the human rights lot.

Me, not so much.

But I invariably rail against empty symbolism, especially from minority groups. I'm actually doing those people a huge favour by doing so. You see, to remain relevant, they need an injustice to fight for and a cause to grandstand about and shout phrases like 'human rights!' It's a hot tub of bubbly rightousness that gets people out of bed and makes them feel intellectual at dinner parties. Seriously, what are they going to do when gays have EVERYTHING they ever wanted and there is a quota of affirmitive gay action and we have a national day of mourning every day about every gay person who ever got called a nasty name. They'll be totally lost. Maybe they'll have to form a support network for advocates with nothing to be shrill-on about.

As posted by SM, the rights of gay couples are practically the same, and also for de-facto (Though as I've said many times, it is against my Human Rights! that the governmnet married me off when I have made no such commitment). If not, I don't think anyone would care if they made them exactly the same pronto.

'But we want to be called 'married'', not' defacto', I hear the gay people, those that are even interested, cry. Well, I wish I could have babies. I cant. Such is life.

Symbolism? pft!

Calling me a mother doesn't protect my civil rights, but allowing me to be a father to my children does. I may not get the societal recognition and acceptance as a nurturing carer that the label 'mother' would bring, but, stuff-em I say, I will show that even though I'm only a father, I love kids just as much.

There's the spirit.

its a pity a few more things were not decided on conscience vote. Anyone without a seared conscience would not even consider robbing children of a father.

Houellebecq,

Good points. But the reason you can't have babies is (presumably) because you're not anatomically equipped, whereas the reason gays can't get married is essentially because a bunch of grumpy old conservatives have forbidden it, 'coz tories get a warm fuzzy feeling from forbidding things. And grumpy old tories forbidding anything is reason enough to want to do it. Hell, if the religious right were to ban men from nailing their own genitals to walls, I'd actually be tempted to do it just to spite the buggers.

From where I sit, marriage was the worst decision I ever made. It very nearly ruined me.

You're welcome to it.

True Rizla,

But I will never be called a mother. Even though I'm not a mother, I'd like to be called 'mother' as everybody knows mothers are better than fathers. I want to be the mother on the birth certificate. Mothers are special. Like marriage is special and better than de-Taco, mothers are special and better than fathers.

It's only the bigorty of those who want ot keep the label mother for themselves that wont let men be mothers. Even if fathers have the same rights to children as mothers, it's the symbolism of being called a mother, the godly nurturer, the mother nature, that I want.

At the moment, a mother is what we call the birth-giver of the baby (Somewhat akin, you might say, to marriage being what we call heteros who shack up and go the extra mile of getting the governmnet involved). But not all mothers give birth, some adopt and are still called mothers, so why cant men, who also don't give birth, be called mothers. We need to be progressive and protect mens civil rights to be accepted by the government as mothers on birth certificates.

Only when men can be called mothers will society truley be accepting of men's nurturing abilities and will mens relationship with children be sanctified in the same way as children's relationship with mothers is. It's 'symbolic'.

PS: I'm with you on the spite. It's really underrated. I have a very strong anti-authoritarian streak too. Which is why I think the government should say, 'We are no longer in the business of registerring marriages. If you kids cant sort it out, from now on, nobody can get married!'. The individual churches can then decide who is 'married', and the governmnet can tax people based on their existing arbitrary and totolatarian way of categorising two people as having formed a partnership.

Houellebecq,

To be honest, I'm not that big on symbolism myself, being more of a practical bent. But I guess it's important to some folk, and if the symbolism of being called a mother will make you happy, I really can't see the harm in that so it doesn't bother me. And if the only 'harm' it should happen to cause is making putting the collective noses of the religious right out of joint, I'd wholeheartedly support it.

I tend to agree that marriage is not really the business of Government... try telling them that.

As I said Rizla, I'm not really bovvered either. I just see it as an amusing tussle to watch. I enjoy the entertainment value of the antics of both sides, but in the end I lean towards 'get over it'. I suppose that could apply to either side, but possession is 9/10 of the law, and that's fair enough. I cant lose really because I either get to stick it to the fundies or the human rights bleaters.

Marriage is the word we use for hetero marriage, just like mother is the term we use for female parents. How many words do we change for the sensibilities of contrary symbolists. You can call me Susan if it makes you happy. Just remembered that line from Snatch. Or was it smoking barrels?

I have no respect for the argument that, 'for all intents and purposes this wont change anything, but I like the symbolism of it'. You can give me 1 million dollars, and if you don't call me a millionaire, I wont be too offended, trust me.

It's a bit of a paradox. They want to change the definition of marriage to be inclusive of any relationship for the purpose of Gay PR, but it will only happen when that PR isn't necessary any more.

Two generations on it will happen no doubt, I don't see the rush. Old people need time to either change or die. It's their human right.

BTW: I want someone to use the term "they're rubbin' it our faces!". It gives me a chuckle every time.

Please explain how a marriage between a man and a woman discrininates or violates a human right of homosexuals.

Philo, a marriage between a man and a woman doesn't discriminate against a gay... BUT you know this of course!

BUT likewise a gay couple getting married doesn't undermine marriage or heterosexuality!

My marriage didn't collapse when Elton John got married, the world didn't end, marriage wasn't undermined, I didn't turn gay, none of my family turned gay!

Why can't people just let gays marry and get over it?

The important things in marriage are two simple words ..LOVE & RESPECT!

If two people want to get married, with all the legal implications that incurs, then just let it happen.

There are too many much bigger issues to worry about, surely?

As for a conscience vote... Wouldn a person with a conscience, vote against a loving couple, who wish to get married, doing so?

A conscience vote may be the most appropriate way to determine an issue which is divisive and deeply held by supporters and opponents. I’d support a conscience vote if all parties agreed that their members had free choice. I hope that a fair number of Liberals (or perhaps small-l “liberals”) would vote in favour as well as Greens and many Labor members.

When 48 percent of homosexuals are in the divorce courts getting ripped off by some stuffed shirt judge, they will be yelling, "why didn't we listen, how could we have fallen for this"?

There is a really serious problem here however, that no one is even thinking of.

How will those same stuffed shirt judges possibly know which one to screw to the wall, when they can't tell which is wife, & which is husband?

They are obviously too dumb to work it out for them selves. I guess they'll have to ask the women's libbers, that's where they go for most of their advice now.

I can't believe this rubbish, you're all bl00dy mad!

What a rant. Civil rights? Human Rights? Everyone is getting so carried away with political correctness that even free speech is threatened. Enough is enough. Sometimes there is good reason to discriminate - an 8mm bolt won't screw into a 6mm hole, and a horse cannot mate with a cow (at least not productively). You may try to convince others that a mule is a camel, but you will only convince idiots, and prove yourself to be an idiot as well.

Cow's milk and goat's milk may both be milk, but they are not the same, and to label them the same would be fallacious and mischievous. So too, marriage is a productive consensual union between a man and a woman, recognised and legitimised in law. A de-facto relationship between a man and a woman is not recognised as marriage because the parties have not sought to have the relationship legitimised in law, by their own choice - in so many cases because they wish to avoid many of the complexities of divorce, should they choose to end the relationship, such as is their right. Marriage is more binding because of the social stability interests, and is so recognised in law accordingly. Union outside marriage is still frowned upon because of the same overall social stability interests. We may be a more open, permissive and tolerant society, but the majority still favours, prefers and needs the societal stability and assurances that marriage offers, and that marriage they see is between a man and a woman.

When you mess with marriage, you mess with the foundation of societal stability and assurance. So, please just go away and smoke your marijuana in peace, and leave the rest of us in peace.

Saltpetre
Your argument is completely circular – you define marriage as between a man and a woman, then conclude that same-sex unions cannot be marriages.

You purport to speak for the “majority” in holding that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Where is your evidence? Most polls I’ve seen suggest majority support for gay marriage, including this one:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/lifestyle/alternative-census-reveals-the-real-oz/story-e6frf00i-1226111802140

Saltpetre,

Forget grass, I want whatever you're on. Union outside marriage isn't frowned upon and hasn't been for some time (save by grumpy old tories). If it was, commentators would use it as another stick with which to beat our much-maligned PM. The fact that they don't is pretty good indicator that most of society has moved past caring about folk shacking up together. In time, it will move past caring about whether or not gays get married. If this change causes the collapse of Western civilisation, I will cook and eat my own pancreas.

Hasbeen

I am confident that divorce rates amongst both gays and lesbians will be significantly higher than 48%. Arguments over the venue and colour scheme for the ceremony will be enough to break-up most gay couples.

We live in a society where conscience does not mean a thing. In a society where values of loyalty and purity do not enter into relationships. Promiscurity, adultery and sex with whoever opens their legs abounds. So marriage purity, ceremony and vows is cheap and means nothing in today's society. That is why they accept any sexual configuration as normal. That is why children will continue to suffer. The only value is whatever feels good for me is right. People makes judgments on sensual pleasures rather than on intelligent stable social realities.

Opinionated2,
If a marriage between a man and a woman does not discriminate against gays, then why are gays using the sexual discrimination card?

Marriage is not merely LOVE & RESPECT as I love and respect hundreds of my family and friends. If Gay relationships are so tenative they only have so few people to love and respect then marriage is not going to fix their insecurity.

In my experience I see gays at parties and gatherings isolating themselves from the general party and obviously they see themselves as different. They discriminate and isolate themselves into a community from the normal society.

Philo,

"We live in a society where conscience does not mean a thing. In a society where values of loyalty and purity do not enter into relationships..."

Humans have operated in an "impure" manner in all ages - even within societies that promote an overtly "chaste morality".

I was fascinated upon engaging in some genealogical research to discover in the 18/19th century that a few of my more notable ancestors were brought to book by the local "Kirk" for "immoral" indiscretions.
They're recorded in the Kirk records. My great great great grandfather, who was a Solicitor before the Supreme Court of Scotland, apparently got someone up the duff in his youth (he was upbraided then exonerated by the Kirk - don't know what became of the woman and child). His uncle, who was a notable local solicitor and and notary in his community also found himself in a similar position in his youth.
This man (and many in the family) represented the highest echelons in local community morality. His son's were generals and colonels in the Indian Army - one was a doctor to Napoleon on St Helena - a grandson was a Vice-Admiral. but there are loads of skeletons in the moral closet...plenty of loyalty but not a great deal of "purity".

Philo,

A marriage between a man and a woman does not discriminate against gays, but only allowing men and women to marry does.

I very much doubt you love and respect 'hundreds' of your family and friends - this figure exceeds Dunbar's number. And I'm sure that gay people, just like straight people, have lots of family and friends that they love and respect - but that they also have one special person whom they particularly love and respect, and just like straight people some of them want to marry that special person.

I honestly can't imagine that you'd ever attend a party attended by gay people, Philo. Anyway, are you sure that the gays you see at parties aren't just shy? I isolate myself from the general party at gatherings because I'm very shy, not because I'm heterosexual. Maybe those gays are also very shy, and it has nothing do with their sexual orientation either. And lots of groups 'discriminate and isolate themselves into a community from the normal society': ethnic groups, hippies, neo-nazis, goths, teenagers, religious groups etc. Take Orthodox Jews, for example - I would argue that they're much more insular and self-isolating than gays. But that doesn't make Orthodox Jews bad people, does it?

The Acolyte Rizla,
What do you imagine marriage is?
I am a member of a large Church community where we are encouraged to love and respect each other. I am a member of a large family of several hundred and we are close knit. I have no desire to establish a public declared sexual contract with any of them. Love and respect does not constitute a marriage, a sexual contract as a husband with a legitimate wife does.

Philo why do you always play the hidden agenda card?

Gays have been and continue to be discriminated against.

You know it, so as a Christian, just tell the truth. You are allowed to tell the truth still, aren't you?

You didn't choose to be gay the same as you didn't choose to be heterosexual (or did you...lol), so therfore because they are as they are, they are from God and deserve to be treated fairly.

Plus if they are allowed to marry, you will feel far less threatened at those gay filled parties when those amorous hot & sultry glances come your way... Ya little hotty!...lol

Most ancient societies needed a secure environment for the perpetuation of the species, a system of rules to handle the granting of property rights to descendants, and the protection of bloodlines.

The State instituted the act of marriage to handle these needs.
The word marriage may be taken to denote the conjugal union and the union itself as an enduring condition. It is usually defined as the legitimate union between husband and wife. "Legitimate" indicates the sanction of some kind of natural law, while the phrase, "husband and wife", implies mutual rights of sexual intercourse, life in common, and an enduring union.

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html

“Most marriages, therefore, were arranged. Moreover, the wife usually had much fewer rights than her husband and was expected to be subservient to him. To a considerable extent, marriage was also an economic arrangement. There was little room for romantic love, and even simple affection was not considered essential. Procreation and cooperation were the main marital duties.”

The author is correct in being concerned about the so-called conscience vote being thought of for parliamentarians discussing equal marriage rights.

It should not be up to just these mostly middle-aged, conservative men to decide on an equal rights issue.
They should listen to all their constituents, and not just the minority bigots out there in society.

Homosexuality is not a crime (except in bigot's minds), and thus they should be afforded the same rights as every citizen of Australia.
This should include the right to be married in the eyes of the law.

It doesn't mean that all the religions who don't agree with gay marriage should be forced to perform gay marriages in their churches if they don't want to, surely?

In today's West Australian newspaper, our local big-mouthed Catholic Archbishop Barry Hickey has had a big dummy spit here in WA, and warned that his priests will stop conducting legal marriages in his churches if it was 'forced' to marry homosexual couples.

As if this was not childish enough, he then went on to nastily say that he would not allow church burials of homosexual Catholics who had
married under any new laws.
His own priests then asked him to recant that last statement.

A true loving Christian, that one....

Philo,

Whatever marriage is, it is definitely not a 'sexual contract'. It's possible you're thinking of prostitution there. For a marriage to be valid under current Australian law, there is no requirement for sex between the spouses and certainly no requirement for procreation.

I should hardly have to point this out, but WE DON'T LIVE IN AN ANCIENT SOCIETY. So why should we base our marriage laws on ancient social circumstances?

Suze,

Your Archbishop ought to check his facts. Section 72 of the West Australian Equal Opportunity Act 1984:

72. Religious bodies

Nothing in this Act affects —

(a) the ordination or appointment of priests, ministers of religion or members of any religious order; or

(b) the training or education of persons seeking ordination or appointment as priests, ministers of religion or members of a religious order; or

(c) the selection or appointment of persons to perform duties or functions for the purposes of or in connection with, or otherwise to participate in any religious observance or practice; or

(d) any other act or practice of a body established for religious purposes, being an act or practice that conforms to the doctrines, tenets or beliefs of that religion or is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion

There was a time when marriage really meant something, when couples stuck together through thick and thin, and toughed out the rough times, but no more it would seem. Divorce rates through the roof, open marriages, adultery, permissiveness and lack of commitment to "till death us do part". Nowadays it's "for as long as I feel like it". What a shame, what an indictment. Gone is moral courage it would seem, and lies, distortion and genital-driven selfishness reign supreme.

Though this is sad for some, it appears to be heralded by others, as the free-love movement mesmerises an ever-increasing morass of writhing bodies, and the morality shift reflects its influence in finance, business, interpersonal relations and foreign policy arenas.

So what if women are no longer revered as the embodiment of mother earth, as the anchor and concrete of societal stability and sanity, to be nurtured and protected. No, it would seem. Let's take sexual equality to the limits, forget the age-old male protector and provider roles, and put the women on an equal footing on the front lines. What the heck, if society now demands it, why not go the whole hog and let the devil take the hindmost.

Is this the society we, or a sane majority really want? Sounds like the pits to me.

So, let the gays and lesbians have their "marriage", for what it's worth, it seems to be a relic from a bygone era anyway, so why stop short, let's just bury the whole thing, and good luck, and be damned.

Saltpetre<" lies, distortion and genital-driven selfishness reign supreme...an ever-increasing morass of writhing bodies... "
What a horrible world you appear to live in!

If you are suggesting that all the attributes you discuss above have only come about in this apparently terrible, morally bereft world we live in today, I would suggest you think again.

I ask you, how on earth does 'allowing' gay couples to marry affect the heterosexual marriages?

Sure, there are more divorces and de-facto marriages these days than ever before in history.
I would suggest that were it as easy to legally and financially leave your spouse in past generations as it is today, then there would have been far more divorced people in past societies too.

They would not be chained together in loveless marriages, as some poor people were, back in the 'good old days'.

It is ironical that people complain about Labor members being permitted to vote as they wish , rather than being required to vote in accordance with Labor policy . A few years ago , a constant complaint about Labor politicians was that they were supposed to vote the party line . Apparently ,the right to hold a conscientious belief does not apply in respect of gay marriage .

To say that MPs should always vote as the majority of voters in their electorate wish is inconsistent with parliamentary democracy .

As another contributor says ,applying this argument would result in the reintroduction of capital punishment . It would also probably result in the abolition of speed limits , free petrol being supplied from Budget funds and removal of income taxes .

We may as well abolish Parliament [ which would be very popular ] and laws can be made in compliance with opinion polls . There is no need for MP s to speak in Parliament . Citizens can express their opinions on Facebook .

suzeonline,
You asked "how on earth does 'allowing' gay couples to marry affect the heterosexual marriages?"

The fact is Gay couples cannot by nature form a complementary gender union which is what the term marry means. The fact is this PC generation cannot define ideas correctly, as for them near enough is good enough. Homosexual acts have never been defined as marriage, as invisaged in marriage is offspring forming a family.

Philo,

You still haven't answered suze's question: how does broadening the definition of marriage to include gay marriages impact on heterosexual marriages?

The fact is that the meanings of words change over time. A faggot used to be a bundle of sticks; now it is a male homosexual. Spam used to be a particularly awful type of processed meat; now it is also unwanted email. Nice originally meant ignorant or unaware, changed to mean accurate or precise, and these days means pleasant or agreeable. And the evolution of language is by no means a recent phenomenon - one only has to read some English classics to appreciate that fact. Chaucer uses different language to Shakespeare; Shakespeare uses different language to Dickens; Dickens uses different language to Tolkien; Tolkien uses different language to Rowling. The fact that some stick-in-the-muds can't or won't accept that language is in a constant state of evolution and always has been, with new words being added, old ones falling into disuse and definitions shifting over time, won't actually do a damn thing to stop language changing.

The Acolyte Rizla,
What Gays do in their relationships is not marry, but pervert a natural sexual act.

Philo,

Gays don't marry because they aren't allowed to at the moment - whether or not this prohibition is reasonable is what is being debated. Quite what this has to do with sex I fail to see.

Well Suze, the struggle between good and evil is age-old, and harsh penalties were once commonplace, with fear of retribution as prime deterrent. From dark ages into light, religious belief has been an alternative deterrent, through fear of punishment in the hereafter, and the question still remains, whether people are genetically predisposed in one direction or the other, or if environment is the key factor, or a combination of both. It may simply be that societal expectation carries the greatest influence on behaviour, and with reduced, more flexible expectations, and more lenient penalties for transgression, we now have a free-er society, with a concurrent blurring of boundaries, and greater cognisance of extenuation, of excuses, of blame-shifting.

Position and wealth continue to influence treatment and outcomes, and time was when some Wall Street financiers would have been burned at the stake. True equality does not, and may never exist, but we have to ask ourselves what vision we hold for the future - should some social expectations be sacrosanct and immutable, or should the word of law be all that keeps us accountable?

Rizla intimates that the meaning of marriage is simply evolving, and that there should be no hindrance to its continued evolution, as though majority will or usage rather than social implications should be the sole determinent of worth. I would refute this, on the basis that ill usage is insufficent cause to abandon the underlying objectives and principles behind the vows of marriage - as the fundamental foundation of society, of family, and of perpetuation.

Any number of freedoms may be tolerated, and may even become commonplace, as long as they do not undermine societal stability or generate intollerable uncertainty. Gay marriage is a borderline issue, but one which threatens to marginalise and undermine the foundation of marriage as a societal norm, and as such the exception should not make the rule.

Loveless marriages, Suze, were surely entered too lightly or in haste, in the main, and perhaps a squeaky wheel is insufficient cause to abandon the whole waggon?

Philo,

For someone who is not supposed to judge others... you sure seem to do a lot of judging!

When you stated "What Gays do in their relationships is not marry, but pervert a natural sexual act.", have you showed your true colours?

Can you simply ignore, that with their partners they love, respect, are companions to, care for, share the lives of etc. etc. just as heterosexuals do?

You forget all the nice, loving stuff and restrict your comment to their bedrooms.

For an alleged Christian you sure break a lot of your alleged saviour Jesus' teachings.

Do you need to self-assess Philo? Are you showing signs of an ugly bigotry?

I think you have just become irrelevant, again!

Opinionated2,
If you think that shuving penises up bums is not a perversion of a natural sexual act then you are mistaken about nature.

Saltpetre,

I refute that the underlying objectives and principles behind the act of matrimony (the vows are merely words, entirely subject to the will of the people involved) are the fundamental foundation of society, of family and of perpetuation. I contend that the fundamental foundation of any society is the sum total - not merely the married couples - of individuals within it. I contend that marriage is not necessary for the perpetuation of the species, as evidenced by (a) the vast number of children born out of wedlock and (b) the vast number (i.e. all of them) of species aside from Homo sapiens sapiens which don't get married and still, miraculously, somehow manage to perpetuate themselves. And I contend that family is a devilishly tricky bugger to pin down, but one which certainly transcends the boundaries of mere genetic relationship - for who but the most clinical and cold-hearted of men could deny that an adoptive child is truly a member of his adopting family?

How does gay marriage threaten to "undermine foundation of marriage as a societal norm"? I very much doubt heterosexuals will stop getting married if they start letting gays married. I could be wrong, of course, but I'm a betting man - what say we put a wager on it? I'll bet my right cerebral hemisphere that the legalisation of gay marriage will have no statistically significant impact on the incidence of heterosexual marriage. What say you?

I feel I should point out that the exception does not 'make' the rule. The exception proves the rule - but not in the vernacular sense, which is presumably where you've gotten confused. The archaic meaning of 'prove' is to test, e.g. 'to prove one's worth' meant to test one's worth rather than to demonstrate one's worth. The exception does not make the rule, but rather tests the rule (which makes a lot more sense). And in this case, the rule against homosexuals getting married has been found wanting.

TBC

Continued

Philo,

Todgers in the tradesman's entrance is NOT a perversion of a natural sexual act - it IS a natural sexual act:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

Unless, of course, one chooses to discount current zoological knowledge, or one operates on a very different definition of 'natural' to the rest of the English speaking world. The latter seems most likely, given your previous difficulties with the subtleties of our glorious language.

The Commonwealth "marriage act" is not marriage nor the ceremony or vows that brings marriage into force. Marriage is the agreed exclusive human relationship between a man and a woman to protect the union and each other and their family.

The law is not marriage the same as an exchange of property contract (Law) is not the document of exchange but the exclusive rights to the property as concented and agreed by both parties. The Law covers an act and the documentation merely covers the actual act. The term "Marriage Act" in Commonwealth law covers the action it is not the action.

If any configuration of a human relationship beased merely on love for each other is merely a human construct, then the term "marriage" does not apply; as some societies within Australia allow marriage to 9 and 10 year old girle to older men. That is merely a human construct, but not fully concentual by the child and made by the mature mind of a child and she is not natural of childbearing age.

Marriage is more than a human construct it is a divine principle that a responsible society does for the protection, security and harmony of the society.

Philo,

With your comment about natural acts did you prove my point 100%? You once again neglected the other things that go to make up a healthy relationship.

Thinking and non-discriminatory behaviour are natural to me... but are they natural to you?

I don't think I would lecture on nature if I were you Philo!

Is bigotry natural behaviour?

Your God must be so proud of you...Philo!

If you believe homosexuality to be a sin.... Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone...

Oh so you aren't a sinner Philo? Another epic fail!

Extending an olive branch to those Christians amongst us, I wanted to show why oppressing homosexuals and being against homosexual marriage is a questionable decision from a Christian perspective.

Let’s use the Creation story...Genesis 3:1-6...http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Genesis+3%3A1-6&version1=9

According to your Bibles GOD created the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and placed it in the garden.

GOD is OMNISCIENT. He knows all the things we have done past, in the present and in the future.

So GOD KNEW that Adam and Eve would eat the fruit…GOD is OMNISCIENT.

The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that GOD wanted you to have a thinking mind! He wanted you to be knowledgeable!

To blame Eve & the snake is simply illogical! But that is what the Bible does...so why do you believe that? Either GOD isn't OMNISCIENT or the Bible is wrong here!

Allegedly Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Bible....Moses was a man, he had failings!...He was not a model citizen!

In fact, in Numbers 31:13-18...if the Bible is true...allegedly with your GOD's blessing Moses invented ethnic cleansing!....http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Numbers+31%3A13-18&version1=9

You can’t just ignore these bits without asking yourselves...Would my GOD allow this?

If your answer is yes, My GOD would allow this, I pity you!

If you answered NO…CONGRATULATIONS! Something must be wrong!

So if Moses was wrong here and in many other of the stories can we rely on his laws.

The answer is NO! If GOD is truly loving…Moses couldn’t represent GOD in condoning stonings...killings...slavery...selling your children...etc.

So could Moses be wrong on homosexuals?

If he is wrong then you & your religion discriminating against homosexuals could also be wrong and you may be breaking many of Jesus' laws you are supposed to hold true.

Do unto others Matthew 7:12....http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Matthew+7%3A12&version1=9

Do not judge… Matthew 7:1-5…http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Matthew+7%3A1-5+&version1=9…

Casting the first stone…John 8:7…http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=John+8%3A7+&version1=9etc.

Something for people to consider!

Remember Matthew 20:16...http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Matthew+20%3A16&version1=9

"So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen."

Simply put....if you are doing unto others...you can't really object to homosexual marriage...Can you?

Opinionated2

There is a variety of views in Christianity, and the naive literalism you assume is not uncommon but it is also not the norm in mainstream churches.

For the record, I’m a Christian who worships weekly in a suburban Anglican church. I support gay rights including gay marriage, and you won’t be surprised to know I agree with much of what you say.

I believe the Eden story is an allegory on the things that make us unique as humans – self-awareness, anticipation of our own mortality, moral consciousness, and a sense that humanity and human life fall short of what they could, and should be.

I think we are created in God’s image – male and female, gay and straight. To deny or suppress a person’s sexuality is a fundamental attack on their dignity and identity which is not consistent with the universal and inclusive message of the Bible.

Christians are called to identify with the marginalised and oppressed. It saddens me greatly that so often we’re the ones who marginalise and oppress.

Rhian,

Firstly congratulations on your reply...You sound most reasonable in your opinions.

Now as to "naive literalism" as you put it. I am anything but naive or literal. That is simply a judgement on your part that is wrong.

I just quoted the Bible...either it is inerrant or religions aren't telling the truth...

But I don't want to argue with you on these points.

I think you present as very reasoned and I am somewhat impressed with your reply.

Hi Rhian,

As I was re-reading through this thread when I suddenly realised that you weren't calling me "naively literal" and I apologise for misreading your comment.

You made no judgement of me!

My experience in Churches is that literalism reigns supreme...but I will take your word for it, in your Church at least.

I am really impressed. I think your answer made my day.

Reasonableness is really lovely to hear!

Thanks opinionated2
I was dradfting response when I saw your second post.

To expand a bit ...

The Gospels don’t mention homosexuality. We can’t infer from that Jesus either approved or disapproved of it, but we can conclude that Jesus and the Gospel writers didn’t think it a high priority.

Most modern Christians, not only don’t feel bound by ancient Jewish rules on everything from clothing to cooking, but also feel there is no contradiction in rejecting these prescriptions. We recognise that the bible contains the national myths of the Jewish people and don’t accept that God encourages genocide and infanticide.

The problem with this, as the fundamentalists (or “naive literalists”) rightly identify, is that when we’re free to pick and choose the bits of the Bible we feel bound by, we can simply cherry pick the bits we like to suit ourselves.

I think the answer to this lies in the New Testament itself. The measure by which we judge as Christians how we interpret law and behaviour is the dual law of love – love God, and love our neighbours as ourselves. Jesus said this is the foundation of God’s law, and this is the framework which should determine our behaviour and choices.

In my view oppressing, marginalising and demeaning homosexuals is to break the law of love, not to uphold it.

Boys, Obviously when your argument falls short you attack the messenger. I have not opressed, or threatened any homosexual, in fact some former homosexuals are among my froends. The sense of opression comes from an obsessive falacy promoted by the socialist Greens that homosexuals do not have equal rights with heterosexuals. The opression is all in their minds. Homosexuals have functioned equally well in our society for centuries.

Philo
1) I am not a boy
2) I have not attacked you. My comments were directed to the implied reader of the contribution of opinionated2. If the cap fits ...
3) Your comments about “former homosexuals” speak volumes. My friends include “former heterosexuals” and “lifelong homosexuals” too.
4) You have called homosexuality unnatural and a threat to the social order. In my view, that is demeaning and marginalising.
5) My main point is that not all Christians think as you do

Rhian,
Please explain from biological science how anul sex is a design feature exclusive to homosexuals, who are very capable of fertilizing an ovum. Vaginas and wombs were designed for the male penis by nature, with fertile sperm being rightly deposited into the vagina. A scientific fact! and depositing fertile sperm into excreta is not a design feature. Such speaks highly of ones low view of one's self image. By so doing homosexuals demean themselves, and is the reason they feel opressed and outcast from normality.

Sexuality has a high order on one's view of one's self esteem. Pushing penises into bums will never realize one's image in another human produced in their likness.

Philo,

Are you really this ugly a person?

Your comments have absolutely nothing to do with whether a homosexual should be allowed to marry. Why do you confine yourself to the bedroom and ignore all the other benefits of relationships?

Thank you, for the biology lesson, but, sorry to inform you, procreation is not the only reason people have sex. And, it certainly isn't the only reason people marry.

Before giving biology lessons should you learn how to spell the body parts first?

Under your very limited view of the world with "sex for procreation" as your pathetic argument, women who can't have children should never marry and men who can't have children should never marry either.

Do you realise how absurd your argument really is?

Do you represent your GOD well Philo?

Are you really this bitter and twisted Philo?

The only reason people marry is for an exclusive sexual partner. All other forms of loving human relationships are not identified on a sexual basis. GET THIS MESSAGE! The nature of marriage differs as the term 'marriage' means exactly a union of a woman and a man - that their union is a sexual one. That is the difference. That Gays want to register their exclusive sexual relationship as marriage is merely to have anal sex recognised as a marriage union, and have it recorded by the Government Registry.

A sick idea!

I would understand that Islam would not look kindly on homosexual relations, let alone "gay marriage". Given the level of tension existing between substantial segments of the Islamic world and the "West", surely the adoption of gay marriage by the west could only exacerbate already delicate international harmonies? But then, we in the West are God's children, are we not, and can do just whatever we like, can't we, and hang the consequences? What brotherhood of Man? That's just a figment of someone else's imagination, isn't it?

I expect the Christian Right would be dead against gay marriage, as well as the Muslim Right, though I'm unsure of the Judaist position, but suspect it wouldn't be in favour. Then of course there are Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, etc views which could be considered - or don't they count? We already regularly witness outbreaks of conflict between Christian and other groups, started by one side or the other, and from no readily identifiable causation. Shall we unwittingly add further to the potentials for rivalry and conflict?

In addition to the various religious sensibilities, there are also far-ranging cultural norms to consider, or to ignore at potential peril. Are we so insular in the West, so self-centred, arrogant and possibly naive as to think we can behave as we like without due consideration of the bigger picture, of the overriding cause of peace and harmony?

Gay marriage may seem like an insignificant and inconsequential issue for some, but for others it may be construed as an outrage.

If a book or cartoon can result in a call for jihaad, or a criticism cause a stoning, what else may be possible? Certainly there is a long path to common understanding, tolerance and goodwill, but this is a road all sides must travel to attain lasting harmony.

What price peace and goodwill? Can a minority make a concession to the greater good?

Let us indeed look to our consciences, for some issues must fall outside of that exceedingly broad spectrum of "human rights" - when we venture to truly open our eyes to that spectrum.

In my experience sex becomes banal in marriage and one settles into a second-life of fantasy. It makes you wonder why God gave us such promiscuous propensities when he intended us for the alter. Maybe he introduced marriage to dampen the sex drive, thus allowing the ladies to concentrate on lamington-drives, and the men to take up fishing and football and what-not--vouchsafing them the consolation of fantsay--not to mention titillation and schadenfreude at bucks nights! I've learned recently that even chess is a masque for sexual conquest--somewhat like the modern man's "shed" for pre-moderns. One wonders what goes on in the shed, btw, while the wife's making pretzels. Ots of good old fashioned male bonding I should think, wink wink!
Frankly, I'm a bit concerned, philo, about your preoccupation with sex and marriage; this kind of enthusiasm can have a detumescent effect on poor old hubby you know, especially if a healthy fantasy life is denied him. Best to let him close his eyes and pretend he's astrude the sexy young thing next door, just quietly. I'm afraid men are incorrigible, dear, despite their pretences.
As for anal sex; I regret that I've never tried it, but I'm told on good authority that in concert with vigorous digital stimulation it's rather diverting..
Can we have some informed opinion on the topic please, anyone.. ?

Having just reviewed the article I can't see why the PC crowd want to inflict what's always been an oppressive institution on innocent, fun-loving (and pillow-biting) gays.
I think rather than legitimising gay marriage, they should de-legitimise God-sanctioned marriage. For once I'm with the libertarians; it's got nothing to do with the state or any authority what consenting adults do together, including what orifice they prefer to ply.
A rally for marriage equality only legitimises the state!
So much for indentity politics!
Now back to the anus.. Is it an erogenous zone? Surely someone's got some science on this.. or anecdotal experience ?

As Islam has more and more influence on Australian Governments to adopt Sharia Laws at least a register of Gay marriages will assist them to discover what men are practising homoswxuals. At least Chistians tolerate them in society and see their actions as a sin even as adultery. Both are sexual sins that despise the ordained order of a healthy society

Continuing on the salacious theme of anal intercourse.
It seems odd to me that most people are bashful about the minutia of the practice when it's so common, both in practice but especially in fantasy. According to Wikipedia, a "Common misconception describes anal sex as practiced almost exclusively by gay men. This misconception is dispelled by researchers, as not all gay males engage in anal sex, and anal sex is not uncommon among heterosexual relationships. Types of anal sex can also be performed as part of lesbian sexual practices".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_sex
Indeed I know anecdotally that it's what a great many (I'd say the vast majority) straight men crave, and not a few of their wives, or at least a great many wives tolerate it. One only has to do a brief survey of online porn to see that the anus is by far the orifice of choicest fantasy.
Which begs the question as to why anal sex is often cited as the most reprehensible aspect of homosexuality--when so many people are either doing it or wish they were! We could wonder why God gave us this predilection for sodomy?
I think the problem for puritans is that homosexuals are open and uninhibited, when they prefer to keep the practice a sinful novelty; it's just no fun if you're not being "violated".
The relevance to the article is that it's taboo topics like this that ought to be discussed openly. We humans have to come clean (so to speak) and accept the fact that we're "filthy beasts" and not the sublime beings we set ourselves up to be. But at least we don't have to be hypocrites!

Squeers,
Your research may be true, but not good for a woman's health. It is like drugs it feels good at the time but has long term health consequences.

So, Squeers, I wonder what our "professional" philosophers would have to say about all of this. Aren't they supposed to have all the answers to these "mysteries" of life? I don't suppose the rise, and rise, of sexual freedom of expression in the West could have anything to do with what appears to be a coincidental rise in the reported incidence of various forms of sexual perversion, or of conflict, aggression, drug abuse or physical abuse - paedophilia, binge drinking, dysfunctional families? But then I suppose some would argue that such social disorders were simply kept more under wraps in the past, and actual incidence may not have significantly varied. But then, what IS the reality? What is the foundational causality? What is tolerable, and what intolerable? What is the solution? Or, is no solution required?

And what accounts for racial, religious or cultural intolerance, discrimination and conflict? We know that social interraction - "Environment" - plays a large part in behavioural and personality formation. So, would it be better if Western "freedoms", affluence and largess were kept more "under wraps" rather than so much "in your face"? Or, could it be that corrosion of adherence to widely accepted standards of social, societal and/or religious mores and norms represents dangerous and unacceptable societal disintegration?

Crime, corruption, abuse, intolerance, discrimination. What price "freedom"?

All this discussion of anal sex makes one wonder if there may be more to the psyche of "man" than is immediately apparent. Could it be that "latent" homosexuality may in fact be a common facet of the human animal, albeit largely suppressed due to "conscience", to societal conditioning? May it be that the likely earliest potential method for avoiding unwanted or prohibited pregnancies, that of practising "safe", anal, sex, has its roots in the early evolutionary development of the specie? And, may it even be possible that natural evolution has resulted in an increase in the incidence of preference for, or fantasising about, this form of sexual expression?

Male/female? It's all one specie, one evolution.

Rhian,

That was a very succinct response to Philo. Well done!

I don't think I would accept that "Cherry Picking" argument if it were to be used against you by fundamentalists, as from my experience they tend to be equal at cherry picking or worse.

If they pull out the "God hates Gays' line they can't ignore Moses' other teachings. They can't ignore what Jesus taught about money...It is very precise.

Luke 18:22-25

http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Luke+18%3A22-25&version1=9

So because that doesn't suit them they wander off into Paul, (a man's teachings), disregarding the fact that Paul was a Pharisee and ignoring what Jesus taught about Pharisees calling them snakes etc..

Acts 23:6 http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Acts+23%3A6+&version1=9

Jesus on Pharisees Matthew 23 http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Matthew%2023&version1=9

But worse Paul continued on his Pharisee ways with

1 Corinthians 14:34-35

“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”

Paul was simply wrong here! Why should any man be allowed to oppress 50% of God's creations like this?

Saltpetre,

All Abrahamic religions think Moses was something special, thus ignoring the evil traits purported to be given by him as laws.

Check out this one Deuteronomy 22:20-21...http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Deuteronomy+22%3A20-21&version1=9

By any measure this is not a reasonable test for virginity!

Are you quite happy to allow gay people to miss out on marriage and all that entails for world peace? WOW!

Philo,

You said "Both are sexual sins that despise the ordained order of a healthy society".

You have no right to declare what and what is not a sin. You had better go back to the ugly Moses' laws for a refresher course.

Furthermore do you pass the Jesus teachings of sexual sin to be throwing this stone?

Adultery http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Matthew+5%3A27-28&version1=9

Philo have you entered into this dangerous area with your posts here?

Matthew 7:20-23...http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Matthew+7%3A20-23&version1=9

Are you running the risk that Jesus might disown you?

Thanks Opinionated

Many bible scholars believe that the most misogynist bits of the Pauline epistles were not written by Paul himself but by later people writing in his name (a common practice at the time), or amending his works.

1 Corinthians 14:33b-36 is almost certainly a later insert (see the reasoning here):

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=3LAfdtprc_QC&pg=PA55&dq=%22women+%22+silence+subject:%22religion%22+intitle:paul+pseudo&hl=en&ei=A5WSToeyKqOImQXhqcAm&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=silence&f=false

Philo,
I imagine if one observes proper hygeine and doesn't assault the anus with anything to large or assymetrical, the health consequences are probably insignificant. I'm more interested in the popular penchant for it than the act. As far as I know the sphincter is not an erogenous zone, so one wonders at the appetite.
Saltpetre, you appear to associate anal intercourse with homosexuality--"Could it be that "latent" homosexuality may in fact be a common facet of the human animal"--yet I think I'm right in saying that though many men experiment with homosexuality, most are straight most of the time.
No, it seems to me that the male fascination for anal intercourse is focused mainly on women, and that it's about power and dominance over her. Indeed I would speculate that those women who enjoy anal intercourse--and a great many who are in denial, or only fantasise about it--are getting off on the same thing, being the focus of and utterly subjected by all that bestial sexual energy.

Squeers,

Men probably feel that same sort of power and dominance in ordinary sex (?) - or could it have something to do with the sexual position in anal sex?
And perhaps women often experience the same sort of turn on in being utterly dominated in ordinary sex...perhaps anal sex heightens the carnal aspect for those who enjoy it.

Thanks for your bravery in considering this sensitive topic, Poirot--the ladies here seem rather bashful..
I can't speak for other men, but in most of my sexual experience it hasn't been about me dominating, but in postpong my pleasure in the efforts to gratify the partner. It seems to me that the utmost in sexual pleasure is reciprocation--I'm turned on by turning her on, a feat I've managed to pull off once or twice in my modest experience.
I think it's true about women wanting to be dominated too; missionary with one leg hitched up at an improbable angle, by the male, so as to maximise penetration, is always a hit. Anal sex would seem to be the next level of escalation..
It must be a real bummer for gays.. anal sex would be just... normal : (

Opinionated2
Obviously you have no sense of discernment of right and wrong about human behaviour.

How is the denial of registation by the Government of gay sex to be considered as marriage going to affect world peace? WOW!

Rhian,

Thanks for that link. I knew the theory that Paul's letters may have been altered.

It then begs the question how many other bits of the Bible have been tampered with over time? Doesn't it make the claim of Bible inerrancy false? And if so, what does that say about honesty and religious teachings?

Paul's teachings have some glaring problems.

1. Paul was a Pharisee and you know what Jesus says about Pharisees in Matthew 23....Was this a prophetic warning about Paul?...Should a Christian follow a warning from Jesus?

2. In 1 Timothy 2:1-15...Even if someone else wrote it, it has outrageously oppressed women's spiritual journeys for 1000's of years.

3. Paul also said this:

1 Corinthians 14:37 “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.”

This becomes a slippery slope for biblical study. Can a man make a commandment? This is a massive statement by Paul.

Why would he say that everything he writes is a commandment?

Giving Paul the benefit of the doubt on his misogynistic ways is one thing but this is serious self aggrandisement.

Jesus, (the Son of GOD), gave two commandments, (not including the 10 commandments), in the gospels although the first is re-stating Commandment 1 of the 10 commandments. (As distinct from rulings ie…Turn the other cheek.)

Mark 12:30-31...http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Mark+12%3A30-31&version1=9

"....love the Lord thy God with all thy heart etc..."

"....Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these."

Seeing we have the 4 gospels of what Jesus was alleged to have said, and Jesus is the Christian’s saviour, why do religions spend so much time in Paul's writings? Paul was a man!

Do a little test if so so wish. Over coming weeks mark down the time your Preacher spends quoting men and women from the Bible, and how much time he spends quoting Jesus (not including the Lord's prayer). I think you will be amazed!

Philo,

Are you intelligent enough to question my discernment?...Lie down time

Squeers,

There's all sorts of psychological aspects to anal sex. It's still slightly taboo, and that's always a turn-on, and there's a trust element and a real intimacy element. Domination is not necesarilty part of the equation at all. Though of course it can be.

It can hurt if not done right and it can be great, so a lot of trust is necessary and being penetrated there is even more intimate as you wouldn't trust just anyone to go there. Allowing oneself to be vulnerable also doesn't necessarily translate to being dominated, and being vulnerable with someone you trust is a fair definition of intimacy.

There are women who can orgasm from anal sex alone and most say it is a different type of orgasm to clitoral or vaginal penetration. Then there's enjoying all three at once of course.

'As far as I know the sphincter is not an erogenous zone'.
Maybe you should try it out, it is for many people. Ever been licked down there:-)lol. Hygiene is essential of course.

Oh, speaking of the psychological aspects, yet another is the trust that a partner will not think less of you for experimenting, in terms of being a 'dirty slut' for women and being 'gay' for men. The mind games in sex are the best part.

Of course the idea that anal sex is 'gay' is as ridiculous as the idea that cunnilingus is 'lesbian', but the notion holds enough weight to be a source of threat in our society.

A little known or acknowledged fact is that not all gays even indulge in anal sex at all. So then accepting fellatio might 'mean you're gay' too. The whole idea is preposterous, and fuelled by homophobia.

Houellebecq,

Thanks for the thoughts and I agree.
My whole object in starting down this (dirt)track was to encourage free thought and open debate over an age-old taboo that so many people continue to be precious about. So thanks for being unselfconscious. And how do you know I haven't tried it (I meant above mainly that I hadn't tried it passively)? I've had a couple of girlfriends who were pretty adventurous!
I've often noted that a primary objection to homosexuality is anal sex, so thought it should be canvassed that it's actually extremely common, and for sure the "sinfulness" of it is what makes it exciting!
Human beings are fascinating creatures who live in two worlds, I reckon, the dreary material/organic world, and the psychological world of sheer confabulation. We're not really comfortable in own skins and our bodies are a source of endless fascination and consternation and energy and misery. We seem utterly Cartesian in our dualism of body and mind, treating the former completely naturally as other. So I doubt that anus is an erogenous zone, but to trippy human psychology the whole body is! Sex would just be CDF without fantasy, and whether we care to admit it or not, our fantasies thrive on taboos.

Wish I had time to muse more on the subject. My first wife was a nurse and regaled me with lots of stories about men turning up in emergency with all manner of objects lodged immovable in the anus.

For anyone who hasn't heard this hilarious story: http://videosift.com/video/Newsreader-Corpses-on-Radio-When-Reporting-Felchers enjoy : )

My wife worked as a gynecological nurse in Cornell University Hospital. The gynecologist stated most problems came from excreta entering the sterile area of the vagina. A good reason to stay away from the anus during intercourse to preserve good health in women, beside causing rupture of the bowel.

Next someone will post a link to youtube for the Tony Ferrino (Steve Coogan) song Valley of Our Souls.

For this discussion Squeers and Houellebecq have - given the thrust of their main points - come upon a fitting end.

'My whole object in starting down this (dirt)track was to encourage free thought and open debate over an age-old taboo'

Oh, mine was to upset homophobes.

There's nothing more fun that discussing anal sex in front of a squeamish religious audience.

I'm so dissapointed though the expression 'they're rubbin' it in our faces' hasn't been used. I always get a huge LOL out of that one.

Philo,

Perhaps that's from women wiping the wrong way when they go to the toilet.

'rupture of the bowel'? Wow, cant say I've ever heard of that happening during anal sex. You must be rough! You have to warm her up first! Maybe in the dark someone reached for a dildo and didn't realise it was a carving knife?

I think this thread has sunk to a bit of a new low for OLO, though I don't blame Squeers for the initial searching entree into this sensitive area of human interraction. Still, nuff said.

In our wild erratic fancy, is't what we do, and have done in our lives which defines us; or is't who we are which defines the choices we make and have made, and possibly will make in the future?

As youth is the experimental, anti-establishment, and boundary-pushing age, and probably responsible for a significant part of the vocal thrust for gay marriage rights, can this be an issue for the elders to roll over on, or rather for older heads to draw the line? I realise of course that these days the "elders" carry little weight, and the "bright sparks" carry the burden of generating future direction and inspiration, but have the reins been loosed perhaps a little too far at this point?

I have the distinct impression that a win for gay rights on this particular issue would achieve very little for the majority of gays, and the masses would simply move quickly on to the next "burning" issue - more or less akin to the stampede to get the latest techno must-have, or Christmas toy, or ruby-red slippers. We seem to be in an age of whim, of protest for the sake of being seen, of joining-in so as not to stand out, and of stirring the pot just to see what will fall out. I may be wrong of course. (Where are the sages when you need them?)

There have always been tear-aways, and always will be I guess, and conformity is such an incredible bore, albeit our society and stability are founded on it. Pretty soon we'll all be speaking Chinese anyway, so does it really rate, in the scheme of things? Or, do we need to wake up and attend more conscientiously to what really matters? Time will tell.

Saltpetre,

It's the tear-aways and those willing to look outside the box that have enabled humanity to progress. If we all just conformed and no-one thought of other ways to do things, we'd still be sitting in a cold cave picking through (raw) bones.

It's not the end of civilisation as you know it...it's just humans demonstrating their ability to push the boundaries.

Poirot, superciliousness does not sit well on the vitae, monsieur. One should not presume that those who are working (conforming and producing), and hence unable to attend rallies for serious causes, either don't comprehend or don't care. Babes in arms may have moved Bob Brown and then Bob Hawke to save the Gordon on Franklin, but what popular movement induced Paul Keating to float the $A, and how many 20-somethings have discovered a vaccine or treatment for cancer, or whatever? Uni students are expected to rally, but is it likely that "Occupy Wall Street" will actually achieve anything? Noise is fine, but pray give the real adults their due. The serious youth are not those cavorting on Facebook, but those designing its replacement, the Steve Jobbs' and Bill Gates' of the world.

We live in individual caves now, and, with rare and pressing exceptions the only long-houses now are parliaments or AA meetings. We have lost the contact, the community, but youth still carry the instinct for group collaboration, and credit to them for that and for action on the environment and whales.

We may be meek and self-absorbed, but we shouldn't abbrogate our responsibility for the broader social structure just because we have other priorities and are caught up in the modern (constructed) struggle for individual survival and self actualisation.

We may vote alone, and stand alone, but when it comes to gay marriage let a plebiscite decide (or ratify), and not some conscience vote by people who don't even come close to representing a genuine cross-section of the Australian community.