Until someone can state a reason the government should have any say in adult, consensual relationships then the entire argument is moot.

We all ready have in place laws that govern property rights, adoption, tax, contracts, and protect both children and adults from non-consensual relationships.

Remove the Marriage act entirely and allow people to decide if/when/how they wish to define their relationships. This will also allow communities/groups to recognize any type of relationships they wish within the exiting laws described above.

"Overseas studies show they (civil unions) do not provide same-sex couples with same level of ACKNOWLEDGEMENT (def: recognition of the existence or truth of something)"

This seems to be the main goal of the gay movement, to force people who disagree with homosexuality to accept it. We know that when gay marriage is legalised homosexuality will be promoted in schools, universities and anywhere else that the left has a strong influence.

Churches in Australia will never be able to acknowledge same sex marriage, thus, for the left, freedom of religion must be a casualty on it's path to equality. Truth is, gays won't feel equal unless the church is rendered useless (e.g. by closing down its charities that don't support gay adoption) or changes it's view on homosexuality, which it simply cannot do and remain Biblical.

Social conservatives were ridiculed for using the 'slippery slope' argument against civil unions 10 years ago but they turned out to be exactly right. With gay marriage, we will be half way down the slope, the bottom of the slope will be the loss of religious liberty as we know it, as history repeats itself and the State muscles its way into the Church once again.

I am also somewhat uncomfortable with the arguments put forward, but for different reasons to progressive pat (who should in all conscience rename himself reactionary roger, but that's a different discussion).

"The reason civil unions are less and less popular among same-sex partners is because they failed to solve the problems these couples face."

Ok, so what are those unsolved problems?

"Overseas studies show they do not provide same-sex couples with same level of acknowledgement as married couple"

I'm sorry... run that past me again? The "acknowledgement", surely, is in the act of mutual commitment, which is between the two individuals concerned. Why should it be a concern what anyone else thinks?

"...and sometimes not even full relationship entitlements."

That is not the case in Australia. Next.

"...most people don't know what a civil union is, what it means and what legal effect it has"

Again, that is utter nonsense. Equally for heterosexual civil unions, by the way.

"...a separate and second-class status for same-sex couples that studies have shown can actually foster discrimination and stigma rather than remove it."

I'd be interested to see those "studies", their provenance and their conclusions. Because quite frankly, I can't believe that in Australia those not already disposed to discriminate and stigmatise would react any differently to a civil union between same-sex partners. What is it about the act of "getting married" that would change their attitude? In any way whatsoever?

"...a national civil union scheme would also be immensely impractical... require referrals from the states... new system of celebrants... certificates.. amendment of all official forms. etc. etc."

That's simply being petulant. There is no possible reason that it could not work, given a modicum of determination.

Look, I can understand why you might feel hard done by, but why not just have a civil ceremony, and declare yourselves "married"? That's what heterosexual couples do, all the time.

It'll certainly be quicker than waiting for the church to change their order of service to meet your requirements.

The gay marriage issue is the silliest issue that people have ever got worked up over. Calling it “marriage equality” is just a trick to disguise what is no more than attempted word theft.

It is not even a gay rights issue. It is an airhead issue.

In our society, there is something called marriage – the exclusive and life-long union of one man and one woman – that gays most definitely do not want. They want something different – the exclusive and life-long union of one man and another man or of one woman and another woman. Instead of pursuing this aim, they and their supporters attempt an arguably unconstitutional word theft by creating mass hysteria about something called “marriage equality” and calling those who disagree religious bigots.

This is as logical as my demanding as a vegetarian the right to eat meat, meaning, not the flesh of animals, but the relabelling of vegetables as meat, under the slogan of “meat equality” and as my accusing those opposed to my weird claim of being vegephobic bigots.

If gays want legal recognition of the exclusive and life-long union of one man and another man or of one woman and another woman, that is fine, but it is not marriage.

Just to forestall the usual accusations made against those who dare to oppose this crusade, I point out that I write, not from any religious motivation, but as an English teacher from the era before words meant whatever anyone wanted them to mean.

Same sex couples would love to have their devotion to each other formally solemnized, but Australian law doe not recognise it.
The only official recognition for same sex couples, is if both or either are recipients of Centrelink payments, then those payments are adjusted to those of a hetrosexual couple.

I agree with Stezza and Chris.

The analogy I use is that I am male, and I would like to be recognised as the mother of my kids. I know this goes against the very meaning of the word, and I am a father and a parent, but the word mother has vastly greater nurturing connotations, and I would like the government to recognise me as the mother of my children.

We will never have true gender equality, and men will never be regarded as nurturers of children until we can be recognised as mothers.

The article repeats itself. It lacks any compelling justification for same-sex marriage. It fails to acknowledge that homosexuals account for only about 2% of the population, that the majority of them are promiscuous engaging in short-term sexual relationships, and that longer-term relationships would not be attractive to all but a few of them.

Analogies such as, " I am male, and I would like to be recognised as the mother of my kids" , demonstrate dysfunctionality , and certainly would confuse any socalled 'children of the relationship'.

Same-sex marriage is about politics not people. Homosexuals should consider themselves adequately served by civil unions, and all other legislative measures except marriage.

In any case, the institution of marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman, and needs to be protected as such, if society is to continue to flourish.

Its easy to make sweeping statements, but worthless without evidence, now can anyone give reason against same sex marriage, instead of its mine and you cannot have it!

Kipp

you don't want reasons just acceptance of the perverse. Plenty of good reasons have been stated numerous times.

Raycom, 'demonstrate dysfunctionality'

My god it's an analogy mocking the idea of wanting the word marriage rather than civil unions. Where did you go to school, or are you just too keen to hate gay people that you just jump right in there.

Runner it is said that right wing religous fanatics, are perverse to the extreme! We fought WII to erase this type of dictatorship

Marriage is an institution--it doesn't have an essence. It has not always been between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others--there still are societies where a man can have four wives; and there have been ones in what is now central asia where the ruler had many wives and a good many concubines as well.

It didn't provide good conditions for women--but the societies did not collapse as a result.
Louis XIV kept a mistress as part of his household, and French society did not collapse as a result.

Refusing to allow the concept of marriage to be stretched is like declining to accept that zero is a number (as many did when the idea was introduced), or rejecting surds, negative numbers and imaginary numbers.

Kipp you write

'We fought WII to erase this type of dictatorship'

Ask the average digger and they would be disgusted by your perverse conclusion. I am sure men defending their lives for this country were doing so in order that we can have queer marriage. What an insult.

I was hoping that by posting first, we could begin a debate about the role the government plays in marriage, before the usual disintegration of the debate into pro/anti-homosexuality. However it was not to be so.

I think the reason why people seem to want the government involved is to push their own agenda, utilizing the government to force those that disagree to comply. Religious groups (and non-religious conservatives)want to use the government to enforce their belief that marriage is between a single man and a single woman, and others want the government to force all society to recognize that marriage can include two single people of the same sex. This will never work. Both sides cannot, and should not force the other to change what they believe in. The problem is, with both sides pressuring the government to do something, no-one is asking the government to go away and stay out of our lives.

My point is, is that the marriage act did not exist, then the community that runner belongs to could chose to only recognize the marriage of same sex, same religion, morally sound people who share the same views. On the other hand, if two people wish to marry but are not recognized by runners community, then they could go and join an community that does recognize their right to marry. This way runner et al is not forced to recognize anything they do not want to, and the two people can get married by a community that does recognize their relationship.

I can't see how this idea would be a problem to anybody who does not wish to enforce their own ideology onto society. I would like to debate this idea, and am happy for people with differing opinions/ideas to speak up on this.

The primary socialising unit in the community is the family, Stezza, so you can bet that all governments everywhere recognise the critical importance of marriage. And in democratic societies, you can also bet that the electorate uses its democratically elected governments to push its own agenda.

My perception of the electorates agenda, Stezza, is that while they are socially advanced enough to no longer consider homosexuality illegal, they just do not accept that homosexuality should have equal status with hetorosexual behaviour. I am willing to see that decided by referenda, are you?

Homosexuality may no longer be illegal, Stezza, but that should not be taken for social approval. For most people, it rates only just above incest, bestiality, bigamy, polygamy, and necrophilia.

Please don't give me any crap about "equality" or "Human Rights". If Human Rights legislation is only concerned aboutt he welfare of terrorists, criminals, illegal immigrants and despised minorities, then I could not give a stuff about "Human Rights". It a democracy, It is a human right for the majority to rule.

And in a democracy, just who is equal, or more equal, is decided by the electorate.

Most of the Australian electorate wants the sanctity of marriage preserved. This whole exercise by the homosexual community is simply an attempt by them to force the community to grant them social approval. But the more you try to force that on us, the more the rest of the population will get hostile to homosexuals, and to any politician or political party who supports them.

Lego, you are missing the point.

First you discuss the importance of family, do you think that families would not exist if it wasn't for government? You need to understand that the government doesn't need to regulate families. They were doing fine before government intervention, and will be fine after. Would you like the government to regulate how many children you can have? How much time you spend with your wife/kids? Perhaps banning divorce to keep the family unit together? How would your family be different if the government didn't approve? You see, family life has nothing to do with the government. It is time they stayed out of our lives.

Second, it is obvious that you don't approve of homosexual activity. I will ignore your opinions on this, as your approval is neither wanted or relevant. The government cannot force anyone to approve of anything, nor should it try. Oppression is oppression, no matter if it is by a dictator or the masses.

You have not given any reason why the government should regulate marriage, other than you don't approve of homosexuality. This my friend is an attempt to enforce your own ideology onto society.

Greeting Stezza.

The State has always “interfered” with family matters, Stezza. The legalities of marriage, common law marriage, polygamy, divorce, contraception, child maintenance, child access, inheritance, paternity, estate separation, and a host of other family related matters have always been considered by lawmakers,in every conceivable type of government. I think that never before has the family unit been under so much stress, today’s family bears little relation to the past, where three or more generations lived within the same abode, with someone always around to watch the kids. Children are increasingly being raised by one parent families, while the care of children today is being “outsourced’ to day care centres, nurseries, nannies, boarding schools, and psychiatric hospitals.

It is not in the interests of governments anywhere to allow this essential institution to be weakened further by allowing the homosexual lobby to use it for their own purposes. And yes, I think the time is fast approaching when responsible governments everywhere will limit the numbers of children a family may have, in the interests of the entire human race.

My attitude to homosexuality is liberal. I do not think that homosexuality should be illegal, but that could change if the homosexual lobby continues to attack the family unit. What most annoys me about homosexuals, is that they use their position within the media to constantly attack families by targeting our children with anti social and anti family values.

Kipp,

I could say, “Can anyone give a reason for gay marriage other than ‘It’s yours and I want it too”? But I will explain it again.

Marriage is not a thing that gays want. It is a thing that they most definitely do not want. What they want is something else and for the something else to be called “marriage”, which would then deprive the language of a meaning - the exclusive and life-long union of one man and one woman. No word would remain to describe that particular state. Marriage in our society is not the exclusive and life-long union of one man and another man, or of one woman and another woman, or of one man and three women or of one woman and three men or of two men and five women. When the federal parliament was granted power over marriage, it did not include the power to redefine the word. The power granted is over the exclusive and life-long union of one man and one woman. If the federal parliament can redefine the words in its constitutional list of powers any way it feels like, there would be no stopping it taking over every area just by redefinition. A train is not a bus. An apple is not a tomato. Red is not green.

The only person who said a marriage is between a man and a woman, was John Howard.
Nobody can give a true answer, as to how same sex marriage will affect them, other than they are hostile to Gays and lesbians.

Chris C., 'marriage' does not now mean 'the life-long union of one man and one woman', and has not meant that for as long as English has existed. Polygamous marriages exist. We have used the phrase 'polygamous marriage' for a long time. We could not have if you were right.

Nor does is the meaning given completely by 'the life-long union...'--there are various legal rights and obligations attached to marriage, which contribute to the meaning of the word.

Life-long commitment, legally and as part of the institution is subject to conditions, and has been for a long time (consummation, fidelity). These days there are others. As had frequently been remarked, too, a wife's entitlement to hold property of her own is a new feature of Western marriage. The meaning of the word has changed.

In any case, the attempt to argue a moral case on the basis of the meaning of a word has got to be fallacious.

"If the federal parliament can redefine the words in its constitutional list of powers any way it feels like, there would be no stopping it taking over every area just by redefinition. A train is not a bus. An apple is not a tomato. Red is not green."

I agree, government shouldn't define marriage. However by the government does define marriage in order to regulate it. If it stops regulating it, you can define it however you want for as long as you shall live.

Lego,

Families do change. They always have and always will. I understand that you may not like how some families are now (what time-period was family utopia by the way), but you can't change this. Attempting to change how people live by asking the government to stop it will not work.

You also have the common misunderstanding that the "homosexual lobby" is going to destroy your beloved "family unit". What could anybody possibly do to change your family? Somehow you think that if two blokes decide to call themselves a family then all of a sudden you will get divorced and your kids will move out of home and become homosexuals themselves?

Do you understand? It is not homosexuals that are trying to change the way you live. You are the one that want the government that regulates relationships between people.

To Stezza.

The fastest growing crime statistic in the USA is juvenile homicide, a trend which is beginning to happen in Australia, with the announcement in June 2000 by the Australian Institute of criminology that it was “puzzled” by the significant rise of violent crime (including murder) that was being perpetrated by children in Australia.

The family has always been the primary socializing influence on children and it is under stress today and getting weaker. It is not in the interests of either governments or parents to allow this to continue. It may be impossible for a democratic government to pass legislation controlling the rise of single mothers, or latchkey children, or divorce, or the fact that families today are scattered around the suburbs, or many other marriage and family related matters. But they can stop homosexuals from redefining the word “marriage” to suit their own self interest.

Most people just do not accept that the word “marriage” is anything less than the union of a man and a woman. And I think that I am right in concluding that most people also see the redefining of the word “marriage” by the homosexual lobby as yet another new threat to the family. Let’s put that to a referenda and I will accept the outcome. I don’t have a problem with a democratic decision, but you obviously do.

You now have two choices. You can keep trying to change attitudes through reasoned debate, but then you will keep coming up against characters like me who can easily counter your arguments. Or, you and your friends can continue to suck up to Labor and the Greens so that you can over ride the wishes of the electorate through minority wedge politics. I would advise the latter course as being the more effective, although the danger is that Labor and the Greens will be considered parties in thrall to the homosexual lobby, and most voters will turn away from them for that reason.

"You now have two choices."

Lego,

If you understood my argument, you would realize that I am neither attempting to change attitudes, nor support any policy of any political party re:marriage. You seem to completely ignore my point that by removing the marriage act, churches and other community organizations can define marriage however they want. That means that you are completely free to define marriage as "the union of a man and a woman". Why do you have a problem with this?

You have not countered any argument of why the government should regulate marriage other than to stop other people using the word marriage in ways you disagree with. Appealing to government to force people to accept your definition opens the possibility that in the future, your democratic nanny state will define marriage in a way that will force you to accept their definition. You see, by abolishing the marriage act, you both retain your right to define marriage however you want, and remove the ability of the government to remove this right in the future.

So really you have two choices. Accept that the government can change the definition of the word marriage, for better or worse, or decide that the government should not regulate/define marriage. You can't have it both ways.

Kipp,

Same sex marriage would affect me positively, but I still don't believe in calling it marriage. If gay people could get married, I would be more free to define the terms of my defacto relationship. Currently there are laws in place to give gay people equal rights (and responsibilities) without giving them marriage. Now some of those responsibilities I have been given even though I have made no commitment in marriage. I see this as ridicuous. If I wanted to be married, I would get married. That's why I agree with Stezza.

I also agree with Chris, on semantics, that homosexuals wanting to be called married, even when they have every right marriage holds already, is like me wanting to be legally called a mother. I notice you haven't been able to refute the logic of that analogy.

Not that it bothers me too much. I also get annoyed when Americans change the meaning of words. Like momentarily for instance. In America it means 'in a moment', rather than 'for a moment'.

I understand some homosexuals believe they will gain some majical acceptance by the ability to use this word, but as I said, why not let me be accepted as the mother of my children even though I am male. It's the same thing. I can be called a father, and not a mother, and gay people can have civil unions, and not marriage.

Houelle mate, I will call you whatever you like, even fairy godmother.

I had the same problems re:defacto. This is when I started asking the question why the government needs to define my relationship at all.

After reading through all the comments on this thread, I am still none the wiser as to how allowing gay people to legally marry each other will affect anyone else's family or relationships?

I don't care who marries who, as long as it is legal.

As far as I am concerned, if the Government has already allowed civil unions for gay couples, then it won't make one iota of difference (except to the fanatically religious) to extend that law to marriage.

Even if you do believe that the invisible man in the sky told some guys 2000 years ago or so, that homosexuality was an abomination, then why would it bother you unless a same sex person wanted marriage with you?
If you don't like the concept, then don't marry a same sex person.

Houllebcq as you wish to be the mother of your children, you have my support when you go though the Transgender medical reassignment procedure!

Theoretically, you could have one without surgery byIVF and ectopic pregnancy. Unfortunately, it's life threatening.

The same-sex marriage plan is about politics, not people.

By claiming that legislation of same-sex marriage would not affect non-gays, proponents of same-sex marriage are being disingenuous. As in countries where SSM has been legislated, they would not stop there, but move to introduce associated legislation to over-ride the exercise of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Passing SSM makes marriage meaningless. Then, why not move to make group marriage and marriage to animals legal?

Stezza, it is you and your homosexual mates who wish to redefine the word “marriage” in the English language to suite your own groups self interest. You are trying to make homosexuality respectable, and you are doing so by demanding that the word “marriage” apply equally to homosexuals and normal people.

Your problem is, that most of us normal people just won’t buy it. As I stated previously, the majority of people are tolerant of homosexuality, but will not accept that it is normal behaviour. I think I speak for the majority when I say that most of us consider that homosexuals have some sort of genetic problem. It is not their fault, they are not doing any harm provided that they keep their deviant and unacceptable behaviour confined to their own bedrooms. But respectable and normal? Oh puleeeaze.

The male rectum is a one way valve, Stezza. It evolved for passing soft material one way. It is not designed for passing hard objects the wrong way. Doing so just creates a lot of work for your proctologist and urologist.

Now, you and the rest of you little buggers go off and do whatever it is that you do, but don’t try and tell the rest of us that it is normal and equal to a man and woman making love, or procreating. Because the more that you demand equality, and the more that you use underhanded methods to go against the wishes of the majority, the less tolerant of you buggers the majority becomes.

Lego,

You must really lack any valid points when you need to resort to name calling and bigotry.

I am happily married (to a woman) and the homosexual people I know are either married already or do not want to be married. So I personally have nothing to gain (or lose)in this debate. There is no evil "lobby" with the aim to destroy your way of life.

Once you calm down from all of the thoughts of anal sex (it is interesting that you seem to think of gay men, and not women), you can go back and read my posts. Then you will see that I do not take a position either way regarding the definition of the word marriage. Personally I don't care what you, or any other person thinks 'marriage' means. My relationship with my wife is not defined by legislation.

I just question the need for the government to regulate relationships at all. You seem to answer this question by going on a rant about eugenics and unacceptable bedroom behavior (which is completely unrelated to the topic of marriage). I get it, you don't like homosexual men. If this is what you call tolerance, however, I'd hate to see what you are intolerant of.

It was only a matter of time before this debate sunk down this to level of intolerance and prejudice. You have done very well to miss the point entirely.

Lego anal sex is common in hetrosexual relationships, and procreation does not a marriage make.

'you have my support when you go though the Transgender medical reassignment procedure!'

kipp,

I would think if you want support for being married you would be more open minded about my request. Anything less is highly hypocritical. You ask that I have a reassignment procedure to get married, yet I'm sure you would find it offensive if I expected you to do the same, or change your sexual orientation and marry a woman.

It's obvious you're just avoiding the analogy as you have no answer. It's exactly the same thing as you are asking for; To change the meaning of a word and be recognised by the government under the definition.

I have all the rights of a parent and a father, but I want to be recognised as the more maternal nurturing mother by having that title recognised by the government.

You have all the rights of a heterosexual married couple, yet you want to be recognised under the word marriage as a somehow more legitimate loving couple by the government.

Each request is pure symbolism. Each request requires re-defining a word. Each is ridiculous.

ozbib,

I’m not arguing a moral case. I am pointing out that the word, “marriage”, has a meaning in our society, the same meaning it has always had, and that to redefine it, which would arguably be unconstitutional, would remove a meaning from the language; there would be no word left to describe the exclusive and life-long union of two people of the opposite sex. Polygamous marriage does not exist in our society. That is not to say that one man cannot live with several women, but it is not a marriage.

Gays have the right to get married now, but they don’t want that right, just as I have the right to eat meat, but I don’t want that right. However, I do not insist that my human rights are being infringed because people won’t call vegetables meat, and my car is not upset that isn’t called a bus.

Chris C.,
You are probably right about the Constitution--
I understand that it is standardly interpreted according to the meaning that its words had in 1901.
I accept your denial that anything follows about what we ought to do, based on the current meaning of the word 'marriage'.

Although there is no polygamous marriage in Australia, that is not enough to determine the meaning of the word. We can talk about polygamous marriages in other societies and make sense--and there is no peculiarity in doing so. So the word is not limited to meaning a lifetime, legally endorsed union between a man and a woman.

It has become part of the current debate that the word is so limited, and that it follows that we should not legislate for gay marriage. That is why I made my comment.

The meaning of the word 'wherefore' is not settled by asking people what it means--they might well say 'where' these days. But it means 'why'--because of the patterns in English of 'wh', 'h' and 'th' prefixes--as in 'where', 'here' and 'there'. The meaning of 'marriage' is similarly not settled by what people will answer without thinking of the various things that are and have been called marriages.

Hi Stezza.

Everybody is intolerent, because if you approve of everything, then you stand for nothing.

And if it is "bigotry" to say that you do not like a particular group of people, and that you are prejudiced against them, then everybody is a bigot. Tell me, do you intend to invite the Hells Angels motorcycle club over to your house, the next time you have a party? If not, why not?

It is also perfectly normal to call people names who are members of a despised group. Everybody does that also. Of course, that can be unhelpful when engaging in reasoned debate. But it can keep the readers amused, so as long as it does not get too nasty, I think a bit of name calling is acceptable.

prej·u·dice

1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.

2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.

3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.

Note the words "without knowledge, thought, or reason" and "unreasonable".

I suppose when you have no valid arguments, all you have left is ignore the facts and spew hatred and intolerance.

Eventually people like you will die off like those opposing slavery, interracial marriage, voting rights for women, etc.

The two longest lasting same-sex partnerships in my direct experience – both in excess of 60 years – were referred to and regarded by the most important people involved, the couples themselves, their families and friends as marriages.

That they survived initial illegality, pernicious social stigma and time is a testament to the quality of the relationships. Were they all still alive today and commencing a life journey as a couple, it is only fair and reasonable that they could enjoy 'legal equivalence' with heterosexual 'de facto' or 'married' couples.

The point has been made by Houellebecq, amongst others: the quality of the relationship is not 'granted' by the legal definitions of words in government statutes but by the actions of the people involved.

That's why I find it amusing that some posters here don't acknowledge that the only threat to heterosexual marriage are heterosexuals.

Sanctity of traditional marriage? Somehow I can't get the examples of Henry VIII or every time now I hear about a divorce, out of my head. Plus, of course any heterosexual poster here who's had sex with more than one person (excluding themselves) isn't, by their exclusionary definitions, legitimately able to claim to be married.

"I think a bit of name calling is acceptable", maybe, but not hateful comment Lego.

'I don't care who marries who, as long as it is legal.'

That's the weirdest comment on here I reckon.

'Even if you do believe that the invisible man in the sky told some guys 2000 years ago or so, that homosexuality was an abomination, then why would it bother you unless a same sex person wanted marriage with you?'

But apparently if the governmnet doesn't sanction it as legal, then that would bother you suze?

Bizzare!

As WmTrevor appreciates from my posts, I cant get around the concept that it matters at all. I suppose because I live the life of a married person and I am unmarried.

Just what does the government have to do with anything? Really?

Should we start asking for them to define who our friends are too?

So that leaves me with trying to understand the motives of the people wanting this grand gesture or symbol. To have their emotional and personal relationships recognised by the governments will make it socially acceptable? Sorry cant see that happening.

Maybe they just want it confirmed in their mind that the majority of the population is in favour of their romantic arrangements?

It might surprise them how few people actually care.

Both sides of the argument disturb me. People who think other people getting married affects them in some way, and people who want the goverment's permission/acceptance (or the populace's permision/acceptance by proxy) of their romantic relationships.

Do gay people not understand that pining for the approal of biggots is actually an act of dismpowerment. Are they afraid to be different. I don't see left-handed people being upset about it.

Some do... but that's because my parrot is pining for the fjords - not the approval of bigots. [Though secretly I prefer to think of them as little ots]

Left handers have had to argue for equality also--needing our own scissors, ball point pens, writing desks (in universities, mainly), playing cards; needing accommodation in work arrangements, such as on assembly lines; having problems with social mores (especially in Asia--in China it's considered rude to use your chopsticks with your left hand) and prejudice from psychologists. There were the sandbags on arms in primary schools, to force people to write with their right hands....

But we have never had to fear for our lives on account of our handedness, as gay men have had to on account of their sexuality. And still do, even in Australia. The fear of being assaulted when walking peacefully down the street--that is enough to create a desire to see every form of discrimination, anything that suggests that their sexuality is an inferiority or a moral fault, eliminated.

Houellie,

I think it stems from the formative years. We're encouraged to operate within strict boundaries. We seek acceptance and approval within the competitive limits of those boundaries, so much so that it's beyond the imagination of much of society to fly on their own - do their own thing - without some sort of stamped societal approval and recognition.

That's the part that worries me a little too, Poirot.

>>We seek acceptance and approval within the competitive limits of those boundaries, so much so that it's beyond the imagination of much of society to fly on their own - do their own thing - without some sort of stamped societal approval and recognition<<

There seems to me so little logic in the arguments on either side.

If a heterosexual couple go through a civil ceremony - even just by fronting up at the registry office with a couple of witnesses - they become man and wife. They are married. End of story.

The only possible motive for gays to push any other marriage barrow is... what?

You want a "wedding"? Sure, why not. Probably best if only one of you wears that silly white dress, but otherwise no issues.

You want a "church wedding"? Sure, if the church will allow it. But you shouldn't be able to force the church to perform the ceremony (or the government forbid it, for that matter). It is their choice, just as a synagogue can refuse to marry using the Greek Orthodox ceremony. If the religion is against it, so be it. It's a reflection on the religion, after all, not the marriage.

Given the legal issues concerning property etc. are equal, what is the fuss about? Wedding dresses are pretty much the most ridiculous outfit ever invented, anyway.

The objections are also a nonsense. Heterosexual couples aren't, on the whole, particularly good advertisements for the institution, given the divorce rate, so the "lifelong devotion" bit is a red herring, as is the "purely for the children" part. Allowing gay couples to describe themselves as "married" isn't exactly going to cause the end of the world as we know it.

"I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened." - Obi-Wan Kenobi

I'm with Houellebecq on this one, all the way.