Marriage is not entered into as an expectation of gaining respect. If Gays believe they will gain respect by being married is fallacious imaginings. All people deserve respect including practicing homosexuals.

However being married is not going to raise their personal level of social respect one iota than from whom they are currently as a person. Heterosexual persons social respect is not raised in society by their being married it is their individual character that gives them social respect

..."Could 2 keyholes ever open a house with no key "?...

Or the inverse:

...“Could two keys ever open a house with no keyholes”?...

...No...A key and a keyhole should only cross the threshold John. Your sad attempt to legitimise the illegitimate is a failure fortunately.

John: great piece, well written and persuasive.
Helen

So: you're argument is: because there are a large number of divorces, we should completely transform and redefine the concept of marriage?

Very sold argument. Reminds me of: "because there are some bad fathers, the State should be able to ignore a child's right to a father and deliberately place children in an environment without a father".

Look. For centuries societies have recognised marriage as a special concept involving commitment by a man and a woman into a committed relationship for the benefit of children. All the talk of 'rights', 'equality', 'the UN', etc is somewhat meaningless in this context. Are you saying that overall society has finally woken up and recognised that based on the views of a loud, well-off minority, we've had it completely wrong? If so, you need to present persuasive argument to make the case, not simply some high-level observations and emotions.

Blaise Joseph's article involved facts, logic and argument. Yours was simply waffle and mush.

Your argument might hold if the basis for marriage were "respect" - but it is not. Further, marriage is not the necessary recognition of a person's dignity or autonomy, as you suggest. The premises you have chosen to rely upon do not support your conclusions, at least not when looked at in a logical way. A good text on the anthropological foundations of marriage would not be amiss.

AMCE,

I'd suggest a that a marriage without respect would be a very poor marriage indeed. And I'd argue that the basis for equality - which is, after all, what we're talking about here - is respect. Respect for our fellow men, and respect for the fact that we're all just people and that our commonalities far outweigh our differences.

John-Ernest,

What's that commotion about?
Why are you trying to break into an open door?

Nothing stops a gay couple from marrying.
Nothing stops a gay couple from having recognition and respect - by friends, relatives and the wide public, not even the Australian law.

"Ah", you may say, "but the government does not recognize gay marriage"

Well true, but if one needs to rely on the government for recognition, whether they be straight or gay or a eunuch, then they are in big trouble because they have no self respect and no amount of outside respect will heal it.

Why ask for the devil's blessings?

I agree with Bill Shorten

However our Laws should be changed to accommodate Couples where the law discriminates eg; Insurance , Super , Property etc.

Garum Masala,
All those issues you mentioned can be encapulated in civil contracts it does not need marriage. The gays are fighting for the right to adopt children and lesbians the right to use IVF. It is not really about marriage is it; be honest!

Philo,

Gays already have the right to adopt children, and lesbians already have the right to use IVF. The only area of discrimination left is that gays and lesbians can't get married - and that's all this is about.

Posted by Philo, Friday, 28 October 2011 12:35:48 PM

sorry but you are wrong , you can't make a Civil Contract with the Govt.

Bill Shorten, I disagree. I think your snipe is ill-tempered and poorly conceived.

I am also a Catholic and a grandmother. When I married in a civil ceremony, I committed myself to my husband for life, as he did to me. Our marriage has survived on respect, love and a monogamous relationship. Some people marry for other reasons and many lack the commitment to make things work - but they are able to be married by a state sanctioned marriage celebrant. Sometimes those celebrants are also religious leaders.

The marriage laws are governed by the state - not religions. As marriage can only be attained with government approval it has nothing to do with morality. If it did then divorces would still demand proof of adultery etc, instead divorce is had under the Federal no-fault system.

A religious marriage is not recognised unless it also complies with state sanctioned law. So leave moralising out of the debate on gay marriage.

To say it is between a man and a woman for the purpose of having children, you preclude older couples past childbearing age, the infertile, and remarriage of blended families whose procreation days replete.

Bill, if as you say "marriage is a special concept involving commitment by a man and a woman into a committed relationship for the benefit of children" does that mean you are also against divorce? Does this also mean that you are against adultery that too often damages marriages by demonstrating that the straying party rejects the committed relationship?

governments should stay out of consenting adults bedrooms. I don't want to know what others do in their bedrooms and the fascination of keys and keyholes is downright kinky.

Gay people have a right to marry their chosen partner

Once again we see in the comments the attempts to rationalise unfounded ideological positions. Diver Dan tells us that penises are keys and vaginas are locks, or something, and that you can't have two keys in a house. I have about eight keys hanging up in the kitchen, Dan -- what kind of pervert does that make me? Then we get 'it's all about the children' from Bill Shorten and Philo, although as far as I know neither of them has ever lifted a finger to lobby for or promote child welfare in any other way, shape or form. Funny how 'the children' only become important when gay marriage is on the cards, isn't it?

I actually agree with Yuyutsu in principle: in an ideal world the state -- and still more the church - would have nothing to do with your personal life as long as you stay within the law and don't frighten the horses. But we are a long way from an ideal world, and until we get there it is gracious and civilised to allow our fellow-citizens -- who pay the same taxes and rates, after all -- to share equally in the limited rights that the state sees fit to give us.

As for 'think of the children!', I understand that poor children, for instance, are sicker, more likely to come from broken homes and more at risk of abuse than rich ones. Which of our brave commentators is going to stand up and say that marriage between poor people should be banned for that reason?

Governments have finally found a way to tax love.

Their private school layer clique buddies and a Coonan media-for-hire that sets the standards of what love is (see dreadful Home & Away assignations) have upped the divorce rates of ALL I-do partnerships. And that means property transfers, stamp duties, endless court fees and more dead-end GST paying children spending money in place of love and affection.

Governments are Cock a Hoop. But single parents are paying through the nose and ultimately shunted out of the system into powerlessness. Which is where a Government that pays lip service to families wants them so they can immigrate better souls and skills in their place. This in a false bid to build a NATION that by definition has lost all propensity to love.

Take the faux demographer Bernard Salt who is public enemy #1 in over immigration. When HIS overpopulation creates extreme competitive tension, and a natural loss of manners, he calls for vigilante groups to hound the people he has forced into the competitive fray. The evil is akin to German Brownshirts of WWII. In the end it promotes a National Socialist meltdown that in history has never proven durable.

Don't say I-do. You are just playing a broken westminster Government system game of nihilism. Enjoy relationships for what they are as they come and go. And go easy on having children. Deny the Government its GST and run the bastards out of town.

A nauseatingly obsequious piece, full of conservative youthful idealism, presumptuousness and presumably a lingering post-coital state of bliss--"The human rights of saying "I do". Ick, I can't stand it!
There are no "human rights"! What rubbish is this? Human hubris! Rhetorical nonsense! What are they vested in?
<Australia is a liberal democracy that prides itself on the equality shared among its citizens> Revolting! Australia is a colonial "democracy" rofl, full of itself over the fantasy of "equality shared among its citizens". Is this kid for real! Even the queers are nationalist pussies these days! They want to get married.. Pathetic! Tomorrow's blue stockings!
A truly stomach-turning piece.
Graham should be awarding an ignoble prize for this one!

Jon J,
The fact is My wife has fostered 153 neglected or abused infants taken by DOCS and placed into our care. I am on the Board of a Foster Carer Administration and my wife now an assistant acessor for requiting carers.

The biological reality is that male sperm was designed or evolved to fertilize the female ovum; it was never designed to be deposited into another human anus. Until someone can explain the biological purpose of the female ovum in a same sex relationship other than to form another human child, then biological reality is being denied by the same sex lobby.

"The biological reality is that male sperm was designed or evolved to fertilize the female ovum; it was never designed to be deposited into another human anus."

Philo, well you have to decide if you believe it is designed or evolved. If you believe in creation, then god created same sex couples and thus we should accept this as biological reality. If we evolved, then evolution has resulted in a proportion of same sex couples, and thus we should accept this as biological reality.

How you manage to use you logic to arrive at the opposite conclusion just shows the extent of your prejudice.

"The biological reality is that male sperm was designed or evolved to fertilize the female ovum; it was never designed to be deposited into another human anus."

This only looks at a piece of the Evolution Jig Saw.
Another equally important piece is that OVERPOPULATION & especially breeding beyond a certain quality of environment and resources, leads to stress hormonal changes that promote deviant behaviours and WAR. This too is a natural phenomenon. Its called survival of the fittest.

But given a level of consciousness that abhors WAR and violence I suggest that changing the roles of women in society to be more equal but to include a law to have far fewer children is a necessary condition.

Otherwise we are just BARBARIANS and have no right to judge any other abnormal stress related human conditions.

War, breeding and immigration are HISTORICALLY a cyclic group. Anyone who believes WWII can never happen is in total delusion and therefore deserves to face the ugly consequences. There are ways expressed above to lower the overpopulation stress and avert war. These may also include imprisonment for those who short-term profit by promoting population Growth over SUSTAINABILITY.

KAEP,
Over population has never been a problem in educated Western society as most families are on the average just under 3 children. the overpopulation myth is a scare tactic used by The Green politicians.

Denial of the biological fact of human reproduction, is no reason to postulate therefore that same sex is natural. Tell me what purpose does the female womb serve in same sex relationships? In every living species there are two sets of genes that are designed to recreate the species at a level of maturity. That is the purpose of the design of the species male and female reproductive parts.

"Jon J,
The fact is My wife has fostered 153 neglected or abused infants taken by DOCS and placed into our care. I am on the Board of a Foster Carer Administration and my wife now an assistant acessor for requiting carers. "

Then I withdraw my criticism. But what a bizarre and unnatural thing to do on a planet where 99% of animal species leave their abandoned offspring to die! Surely if God had intended neglected or abused children to be looked after, then we wouldn't have had five millennia of high infant mortality, would we?

What you regard as 'natural' and 'design' is merely your own prejudices showing. The fact that you are willing and able to use a computer, for instance, shows just how happy you are to embrace the 'unnatural' when it suits your purposes -- after all, where does God mention computers in the Bible?

Jon J,
"What you regard as 'natural' and 'design' is merely your own prejudices showing."

Demonstrates your absolute ignorance of biological reality. Go to school!

Philo,
don't you think it is a bit weird that you think about other couples bedroom activities?

It is not as though anyone is trying to make gayness compulsory.

I think life must be difficult enough for gay folk, with the level of homophobia still around, and suspect that at times many would have wished that they were able to conform to hetero life. If 2 people of the same gender are able to find happiness, why does it concern anyone else - and why deny them the same right as other Australians.

Being hetero does not make a person any more able to love and care for children as you noted. The abused children your wife has cared for were created by a woman and a man, as you so rightly point out. Their hetero-ness did not make them better parents.

The world is changing, and most Australians do not see any problem with gay marriage. Personally I think it is a dumb political football and the govt should just legislate and approve it and be done with it.

If you can't deal with the thought Philo, I recommend you stop fantasizing what other consenting adults do in their bedrooms.

What is natural has no relation to what is good or bad, moral or immoral. You have all typed your comments on keyboards. Your fingers did not evolve to do that! They didn't evolve to write, or to sharpen knives or to play musical instruments. None of these activities are natural. None of them are in accordance with the biological function of fingers. But that provides no reason whatsoever for holding that what you have been doing is wrong.

Soccer players use their feet and their heads to move footballs. Most unnatural. Ballerinas stand en pointe.

Discussion about gay marriage has been around at least since I was an undergraduate in the early 1960's. The bad arguments about what is natural were around then, too--and shown to be fallacious--as I have just done.

There are, it is true, other senses of 'natural' than the biological. But they don't help either.

The flip side of this is that showing that homosexuality is natural does not show that it is morally acceptable either. Responding with one's fists to an insult is natural. That does not make it morally acceptable. The argument needs to shift to a careful account of the morality of sexual relationships. Too big a task for 300 words--as is the defence of the concept of human rights.

ozbib,
Next homosexual men will be seeking equal rights to Lesbians because they cannot give birth to children. Nature itself dictates what is natural. All activities undertaken by the hand and the foot are natural movements.

Philo, what do you mean by 'natural'? Genetically determined?

Your assertion appears to be arbitrary. I can assert just as well that all activities undertaken "by" (with?) any part of the human body are natural. And is not masturbation undertaken by the human hand?

The main point remains. What is natural has nothing to do with what is morally right or wrong.

Philo,

Firstly, homosexual behaviour is common in nature. Ever heard of bonobos? Or sheep? Humans are definitely not the only sexually reproducing species who engage in homosexual behaviour.

Secondly, if ALL activities undertaken by the hand and foot are natural movements, it follows that any activity undertaken by any part of the body are natural movements. After all, if they were unnatural movements then we wouldn't be able to perform them, not having evolved/been designed to do so. By your own reasoning, the activities undertaken during homosexual lovemaking are natural movements.

This issue and the discussion on this thread are so terribly revealing of the contemporary human condition, demonstrating just how far we have moved beyond the key survival imperatives - possibly in pursuit of some otherwise unfulfilled psychological need. Can the absence of extreme hazard as a fundamental of our daily lives have given rise to an overblown concern for the underdog, for the lame ducks in our midst? I wonder.

We don't want to execute murderers, and feel the need to conduct extraordinarily complex "rituals" to determine guilt or innocence in even the most blatant of cases, and seem eager to afford dispensation on the basis of all manner of "extenuation". Is this truly altruistic, or extreme compassion, or are we really just protecting our own butts? Are we truly brave and responsible, or really just becoming a bunch of whimps?

While it is "natural" and commendable to have concern for the environment, whales, rhinos, elephants, tigers, forests, etc, it is surely not natural to have compassion for drug dealers, thieves, paedophiles, terrorists, or murderers, etc. Yet many do.

Our cerebral extravagance is understandable of course, given our curiosity and ingenuity, as demonstated in the almost unbounded pursuit of knowledge, technology, machines, gadgets, etc. But how far is it safe for cerebral acrobatics to be allowed to shape the structure of our society or of our priorities? There has to be a balance between the fundamental essentials and our pursuit of "idealism".

Key priorities have to be maintained, and in the scheme of things, gay marriage is of such minor significance as to be an inexcusable distraction from far more important demands on our intellect and on our resources.

If you need an issue worthy of compassion and altruism, consider the plight of refugees, of the many destitute and victimised, and of our defence forces and allies put in harms way in arenas where their services are unappreciated and even despised. Let's at least try to get our priorities right.

Those practicing homosexual perversions want people to stay out of their bedrooms yet they want the State to Publicly declare and register their actions as normal, so the heterosexual community legally cannot speak against their behaviour.

It is a Green PC Socialist agenda to normalize and change biological reality as acceptable so they can take legal action against any person who objects to their perversion. I have spoken to several on another site and the height of their anger is uncivilized.

Obviously some here see no boundaries on their social behaviour, and their image no higher than sheep who lie in their dung or monkeys who throw it.

Dear Philo,

I never heard of a sheep or a monkey who built a nuclear bomb.

Philo,

Nobody's freedom of speech is under threat from the proposed changes. You will still be able to rail against homosexuality as much as you like, and it will be just as legal as it is at the moment. The extent to which one's speech is free is determined by laws like defamation and sedition laws - not the Marriage Act 1961, which is the only one folk want changed, and changed in a minor way that does not relate to freedom of speech. Stop attacking straw men.

How on earth can a bunch of hippies change biological reality? Do they have magic wands? Can they do miracles?

For the dozenth time: what homosexuals do in their bedrooms is not social behaviour. It is private behaviour, and as such it is not the concern of anybody not engaged in the behaviour. Do you always have this much trouble minding your own business?

The Acolyte Rizla,
Make up your mind, is the committment of marriage social behaviour or private behaviour? Once it is registered by the State it is a public behaviour.

Yuyutsu,
That homosexuals determinetheir source of example and justify their behaviour on what dumb animals do indicates they cannot justify their behaviour on what is highly acceptable as human behaviour.

Dear Philo,

You missed my point.

I was not referring specifically to homosexuals, nor am I one or take particular interest in their case.

I do however object to that attitude of superiority of humans over other species, so I simply commented that humans are not superior to animals - and given the prevalence of certain disgusting human behaviours, perhaps being dumb, is even an advantage, a compliment. What's highly acceptable as human behaviour is often not acceptable at all.

If you want to criticise homosexuals, please do so on other grounds, but don't insult the good animals, who are often better than humans.

As an example, may I remind you of Proverbs 6, verse 6: "Go to the ant, lazy man; consider her ways and be wise"!

Philo,

Sex is private. Marriage is public. Sex does not become public when it is practised by a married couple. Simple enough for you to understand?

Homosexuals do not justify their sexual behaviour on the homosexual behaviour of animals any more than heterosexuals justify their sexual behaviour on the heterosexual behaviour of animals. The point about animals engaging in homosexual behaviour was raised as a rebuttal of your ludicrous assertion that homosexuality is unnatural.

The Acolyte Rizla,
What you have intimated about homosexual activity in other species bears only scant relation to human homosexuality, as there are generally quite different causative mechanisms operating, though there are some parallels.

In some instances there is clear indication of genetic defect - as in the case of some male domestic sheep, probably as a result of selective breeding. In other cases, including in birds, there are group and species survival imperatives operating, and which most significantly are of instinctive origin, rather than conscious decision.

There are parallels in whale and dolphin species, but the individual and group survival necessities operating could be considered quite different - as in younger male animals forming male only groups, and practising the motions of sexual activity to master the techniques involved - and given the strenuous and potentially life-threatening competition involved in achieving mating rights, and with limited mating opportunity, it is understandable that sparring and technique practising should be commonplace. Few, if any, such survival and procreational imperatives could be seen to apply to the human species however.

It does however appear that sexual tension is not limited to humans, and various relief mechanisms may be employed.

The sexual activities of Bonobos in particular bears little relation to human homosexual behaviour, as Bonobos use sexual interraction as a group as well as individual bonding mechanism, don't form monogamous relationships, and the principal homosexual activity is female-female, which is a key bonding mechanism, as Bonobo communities appear to be matriarchal.

It is possible of course that most of the factors at play in the animal kingdom are also operative in human homosexuality in one way or another, including instinctive response, genetic defect, male-male sparring (carried to a new level), and the operation of female matriarchal dominance instincts.

The key difference is that humans are expected to rise above instinctual response, and apply rational reasoning in the best interests of the group, tribe, civilisation. Such imperatives clearly are no longer a prime motivation in our liberated society. Though gay marriage may not be threatening, societal fragmentation is.

Philo, while you are re-thinking your assertion that anything done with hands or feet is natural, could I ask if you'd give the same response to my assertion that playing a wind musical instrument, such as a trumpet or a clarinet is unnatural, but can be morally good? Will you say that anything done with the mouth is natural?

The discussion of animal homosexual behaviour is only relevant while people are supposing that what is unnatural is morally wrong. Once this spurious assumption is dropped, the issue changes.

Starting point: Some humans find that they are sexually attracted to others of the same sex. A proportion of those are also attracted, sometimes to a greater degree, sometimes to a lesser (often much lesser) degree to people of the opposite sex.

Is there any good reason why any of those should not engage in sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex? (I think not.) Then what are the moral requirements for sex; and are there any moral differences between gay male sex, lesbian sex and heterosexual sex? Well, yes, there are some. But not such as to make any of the varieties automatically wrong.

The next step is to ask what marriage is good for--not what it has been used for (a long and complex story--and by no means has its principal purpose always been the production and support of children) but what good it may achieve, and at what cost.

Saltpetre,

What I intimated about homosexual activity in other species was that it occurs.

The Acolyte Rizla,
Yes in an endeavour to assert that in human society is also accepted as normal intelligent amoral behaviour.

However in animals it is merely bisexual play but when heterosexual opportunities arise they are there for the occasion and that is the preference.

Philo,

Boy, you never get tired of being wrong, do you? Some animals are bisexual, but others display an exclusive homosexual orientation. For example, bonobos are bisexual, but some rams are exclusively homosexual.

The Acolyte Rizla,
I grew up on farms and worked on farms till I was 39. Sheep have a bonding identity, if brought up by humans bond with humans. My youngest brother at three had a young lamb (a ram) that when the ram matured we had to get rid of because he had bonded with my brother and tried continuously to mount him. The person who brought him put in a paddock with several ewes where he did his work and all were happy. Was he really homosexual?

Philo,

Anecdote in place of argument? F-, and remain behind after class to write 'I must not extrapolate from the specific to the general without solid data to back up my conjectures' 500 times.

I have lived and bred animals for a major part of my life and female animals on heat in a herd are mounted by other cows, this does not prove women are similarly lesbian. It was a sign the cows wanted to be served by the bull. In the case of a flock of sheep a ram can serve over 250 ewes in a night. Twin rams often bond from birth and are seen playing together however as grown rams they can service ewes and are not preferring other rams as you seem to claim parallels homosexual humans who prefer only same sex.