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.