Bravo. One can only hope that the despotic religious right will wane in influence from here on. I still cannot understand why a true Christian would want to curtail another's relationship...turn the other cheek and all that. The only passage in the Bible that mentions homosexuality brings it up to make the point that while some things seem bad, to persecute on that basis is far worse!
Given the behaviour of priests (either committing or protecting paedophilia) in every country of the world for the last few decades you would think they would be OK with it...or maybe the fascination with same sex only applies to powerless pre-pubescent people?
As priests in the US say things like "beat the gay out of your child" and the rest of the church remains silent...the discrepancy between their claimed virtues and actual behaviour is stark and obvious.
Finger pointing Christians need to read-up on their Jesus quotes and support what He would want...not the church authorities.

Maybe Rodney is right and we could celebrate. After we've finished with the Gay marriage thing we should consider lowering the age of consent another few notches. And if cousins are ok, why not half-brothers and sisters? Let's go the whole hog: our mothers as well?

And I just can't understand why we limit marriage to only two people.

Actually, why does government regulate relationships at all?

When we've finished off with relationships we should move on to killing our babies and old people.

Hooray for progress.

See above for hysterical overreaction.

Gay marriage is not a religious issue at all. Pretending it is is just a way of deflecting attention from the poor quality of the argument in favour if it. Gay marriage is an oxymoron. That it is even taken seriously shows how powerful postmodernism has become. It is as ridiculous as a vegetarian complaining that his equal rights have been infringed because he is denied the right to eat meat. Society has the concept of two people of the opposite sex forming an exclusive and life-long union. It has a word for this concept. The word is marriage. If a gay person wants to marry, he or she can; i.e., her or she can forma an exclusive and lifelong union with a person of the opposite sex. If, as is more likely, he or she wants to form an exclusive and life-long union with a person of the same sex, he or she can. If he or she wants legal recognition of that union, he or she ought to have it. But the word to describe such a union is not marriage. It’s all very simple. But we have to endure the cries of victimhood because some people demand that the word currently used to describe the thing they would hate to have be used to describe the different thing that they actually want. If I, a vegetarian, demanded that vegetables be called meat, I’d be regarded as silly. If I called those who opposed my demand bigots, I would be regarded as nasty as well.

http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/550489.aspx?PageIndex=68

http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/550489.aspx?PageIndex=69

http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/550489.aspx?PageIndex=69

http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/550489.aspx?PageIndex=81

http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/550489.aspx?PageIndex=82

http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/550489.aspx?PageIndex=93

http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/550489.aspx?PageIndex=105

http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/550489.aspx?PageIndex=160

http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/550489.aspx?PageIndex=161

http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/550489.aspx?PageIndex=165

http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/550489.aspx?PageIndex=165

http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/550489.aspx?PageIndex=17

A simple look at the QLD, NSW, Victorian election and current polls shows that at the people are either against 'gay'marriage or indifferent. The gay lobby has always been over represented in Parliament.

btw Ozandy most of the abuse by priests on kids are homosexual acts. I know its not pc to say so but it says alot.

I am highly sceptical about the so called "disproportionate influence of the religious right" for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, it's simplistic. I might be religious, and I might hold a few socially conservative positions- but the term "right" as it is commonly understood goes much further than that. For example, I support the campaign asking Gillard to contribute 0.5% to foreign aid. Doesn't that make me a left leaner on that issue? Left/Right are terms that shed more heat than light and thus we should dispose of them.

Secondly, where's the regard for the obvious fact that there are many Aussies who are not extremely observant in a religious sense, but who nonetheless largely concur with the moral framework promoted by groups like the ACL? People like Croome point out the well-organised lobbying of the ACL, and then assume that they are having an influence that is out of kilter with the number of highly religious people. Maybe so, but it isn't only the religiously observant who support the traditional definition of marriage, or who don't want children exposed to sexualisation, etc etc.

So there are serious enough question marks on both terms in use- "right" and "religious" - that this rhetorical phrase should be cast into the bonfire, to be replaced by terminology and discussion that will actually be constructive.

runner
It doesn't say anything.

These are not "homosexual" acts, they are pedophile acts. Have you also thought that pedophiles are attracted to jobs of authority where they have contact with children, hence the attraction of the Church. They clearly aren't men of God.

Does that mean we should ban heterosexual marraige as well because pedophiles also target opposite sex victims?

Makes no sense. It is bigotry which causes harm by marginalising homosexuals and adds to the increased suicide and attempted suicide rates among young homosexuals. In 100 years time society will look back on this period appalled at the way society treated homosexuals as second class citizens.

The question that is just sitting there on the tip of my tongue, Pelican, after reading your post is this:

What specifically is it that means Homosexuals are being treated as "second class citizens"? Does support for the current definition of marriage imply treating homosexuals as "second class citizens"?

I certainly oppose 'gay marriage'

Not for religous reasons but simply because the word 'marriage' has a definate meaning. The legal union of a male and female.

If homosexuals want to have a legal union, that is fine but create a new word, or two, meaning just that. There is no need to alter of an already existing word. I am sure wordsmiths would love to create a word.

We have already allowed the general meaning of the word 'gay' to be changed, that is compromise enough.

The only reason they seek to change the meaning of the word is because it projects a more acceptable image

the religous right is so influential that we have a lesbian finance minister, a feminist atheist pm and a godless cabinet. We also have a homosexual in charge of Qantas and many working for our National Broadcasters. Not bad for a very small percentage of the population. And conservative Christians we have? The homosexual lobby is good at lying.

Chris C... there's a helpful icon below a post to copy the comment URL to the clipboard for pasting in future references… This could help avoid unnecessary repetition.

And I still think the people most likely to regard your comments as bigoted are the majority of heterosexuals in legal marriages that they think are legitimate but which cannot be according to your definition.

Travis I think you're on to something… The terms of right and left are confusing enough when used about political ideas and more so when applied as descriptors of religious positions. What do you suggest instead?

Not sure about 'highly religious people' either as it implies the opposite is 'lowly' when some people are simply capable of being privately and devotionally religious.

By the same token, I find the use of the phrase 'moral framework' inappropriate when applied to the policy promotion of groups like the ACL. I suggest 'social prescription' as an replacement term.

Thanks Rodney, for a thoughtful article on a complex and emotive topic.

Trav wrote: 'I am highly sceptical about the so called disproportionate influence of the religious right" '

However you want to label it, we need to be aware that when it comes to so-called 'Christian opinion' expressed in the media there is indeed a disproportionate representation.

One group that receives a lot of media attention (and to which Rodney referred in his article) is the 'Australian Christian Lobby'. Please be aware that Jim Wallace and the ACL definitely do NOT speak for all Christians on this, or any other topic. The ACL is a very media-savvy and well-funded lobby group, with particular views (that are not necessarily shared by all Christians or church organisations, because within the whole breadth of the Christian church there is a huge diversity of opinion).

The ACL and similar groups certainly have a right to be heard, and I'm not complaining about that. What I AM complaining about however, is the fact that the ACL is often viewed by the wider community as being representative of ALL Christians, which is simply not the case.

The ACL has become the ‘go-to’ group whenever the (lazy) media are seeking a quick and expedient soundbite of ‘Christian opinion’. All this, despite the fact that more moderate Christian groups are shouting their arses off to be heard in public forums, but still never manage to secure any media coverage because their views are not sensational or extreme enough.

Runner: So the world-wide phenomenon of priests molesting children is *homosexuality's* fault and not the church? What about the culture of silence in the face of this behaviour? Why is it that these priests do not extend their homosexuality to adults?
It appears that within the church(s) dobbing in a fellow priest is far more heinous than the act itself or we wouldn't see this consistency in global behaviour.
We may never agree, but to offload the failings of the church on homosexuals is a bit of a long shot!

runner
Full of the milk of human kindness as usual. What is wrong with a feminist or lesbian or atheist anything? Why is your soul so full of hate. Take a breath and embrace. What is this nonsense about feminists? I am sure Gillard and her female counterparts in the ALP and the Coalition are not planning a female takeover - in fact there are more men in parliament. I see that fact does not disturb you at all, it doesn't worry me either. I don't give a tinkers if there are more men or women in politics as long as they do their job properly.

Sheesh what are you people drinking. What makes a lesbian finance minister any different to a heterosexual one. All I am reading is hate, hate, hate. If that is your religion you can have it. Look at the record of the Howard Government of which many were Christians. It is not what people say but what they do that matters. In the US the right-wing religious fanatics liken universal health care to communism. This is the nature of some of these radical religious extremists. Thankfully most are not like this in Australia.

Trav
The sorts of threads and reactions that one reads on OLO is not enough to persuade you. Just read runner's comments above.

Firstly denying marriage rights to two consenting adults is paramount to arguing that a same sex partnership is not the same as any other partnership. That it is somehow wanting. Love and commitment are not exclusive to heterosexuals.

Secondly, I have not seen any case where heterosexuals are bashed for their sexuality.

Thirdly, homosexuals are branded by some as nothing worse than pedophiles. Even runner has avoided the question about heterosexual pedophiles - he just wants to put his head in the sand and pretend they don't exist because it might ruin his anti-gay perspective.

Attitudes will change but it is taking its sorry time, but thankfully the younger generations are proving to be more inclusive.

Pelican,
You said, "Firstly denying marriage rights to two consenting adults is paramount to arguing that a same sex partnership is not the same as any other partnership"

There is not'any other partnership' it is either same sex or opposite sex. Yes there is a difference between the unions. Need a word to define same sex unions.

If one reads the case histories of sex abuse documented by 'Broken Rites' You will see that they are almost entirely about priests abusing boys. What does that say about homosexuality and paedophillia. It suggests there may be a connection. Google Brokenrites.

I'm not sure that I understand your point about influence in government, runner… It was you in another thread who said:

"That is a little hard considering at the end of the day God is the one that appoints and brings down Governments."

I can only support Banjo when he says that marriage means a union of a man and a woman. More importantly, as far as the Federal Government is concerned, their power under the Constitution to make laws on "marriage" must mean what "marriage" meant in 1901. Considering that in 1901 the Buggery Act was still in force, (even though the penalty for buggery had been reduced from hanging to life imprisonment) it would be hard to maintain that "marriage" could include homosexual marriage. This definition can only be changed by the people at a referendum.

I find it very hard to accept the idea that the non-acceptance of homosexual marriage constitutes discrimination. In our society we have male and female toilets. Being male, if I were to enter a female toilet I could well be subject to penalties. Is this discrimination? I hardly think so. The whole basis for community regulation of marriage is that it can produce offspring, and a homosexual relationship cannot do that, and therefore it is fundamentally different. I fully support the idea that people in homosexual relationships should not suffer any sort of discrimination, but trying to call it something it is not is not the answer.

I don't believe that there is a left or right in modern politics; just an up or down, or good or bad policy; albeit, there are a few recalcitrant red neck pea brain bigots, with entrenched views; that will never ever be modified by factual evidence.
They get by by simply ignoring that very evidence and their own serious shortcomings; as they sit, in Godless self appointed judgement! There are none so blind---
If Jesus was here, he would likely ask the self appointed un-anointed bigots, "just who was it, who gave you the right to speak in my name"? The day of final judgement falls on us all!
That said, all real social advancement is achieved by a series of small steps. Civil union unities couples of any sexual disposition in wedlock.
If we simply took the word marriage, [holy wedlock,] out of the debate and replaced it with the words wedding and wedlock, we would arrive at a place we could likely all agree with, and once that was achieved, rusted on and or socially acceptable, we could substitute with the term Gay Marriage, which would still differentiate between traditional marriage, [holy wedlock,] and same sex unions.
I just don't get all the fuss, over a form of words.
Everyone extant on the planet has an absolute right to the pursuit of happiness, even those born crippled, left-handed or with any other birth defect or aberration, some of which we might remedy or cure, with more knowledge and advanced treatment.
We really need to stop punishing other human beings, simply because they are born different. Enough already! Rhrosty.

...A very oversimplified psychology is used by the pro-homosexual lobby to effect, which states that any opposition to any “part” of their unusual cause, which prevents them affecting a total domination of debate, will be manipulated by them to purvey falsely, adherents to the counter argument as homophobic.

...An insidious and alarming extension to the original tactic of over-simplification splits the Christian church into two distinct camps, and labels opponents of homosexuality incorrectly as right wing evangelical radicals.

The older I get the more cynical I become about 'social reform', which increasingly identifies as code for 'social liberalisation' - pushing moral and behavioural boundaries towards the point of 'anything goes'. This is not reform, it is social anarchy, and its detrimental effects are seen in the leniency afforded to sporting personalities who are found to have used and/or marketed in drugs, or to have committed rape (including gang rape) or to have bashed their girl friends, compatriots, bouncers or mere bystanders. All too often such ill behaviour is further 'countenanced' by their being welcomed back into 'the code' - where 'justice' ought see them ostracized.

Such libertarianism/leniency is also increasingly extended to untrustworthy financial advisers, investment bankers, speculators and shonky businessmen - even to politicians and lame-duck parents.

As societal fragmentation is driven by the explosion of 'social media' purporting as 'connecting' but increasingly resulting in isolation and distancing from society at large, and even from family and direct community, the age-old generation gap is becoming a crevasse. Reality TV does NOT = reality.

The author's quoted survey responses to Gay Marriage need be taken as indicative only of response from the gay lobby, and this whole question is one which should definitely NOT be left to the politicians, but should only be determined by national plebiscite.

Pelican posted at 11:19am 4 May:
>>In the US the right-wing religious fanatics liken universal health care to communism.<<

Is it only me that finds it contradictory that religious fundamentalism increasingly attaches itself to the right-wing, and hence business-end of politics, rather than to the people end (ie Labor/Democrat)? Is not religion primarily FOR the people, and FOR social equality? (Gay Marriage does NOT = equality, it = distortion.)

Pelican,

Why does a homosexual need the title of "marriage" in order to be able to show "love and commitment"!?

Same sex couples already get basically the same rights as others, in terms of property, tax etc. This took place on 1 July 2009! So the whole marriage debate is not about being discriminated against, or being denied the right to have a recognised relationship. They have the rights they deserve, so please don't tell me they're somehow being treated as second class citizens.

This debate is about homosexuals wanting to redefine a word that does not need redefining. They've managed to win the PR battle and get the public on board by repeating the words "EQUALITY" and "LOVE" Ad infinitum, but this doesn't make it so. Homosexuals deservedly have rights and benefits, and they're allowed to love each other so this isn't about equality or love. All they want to do is redefine something that's already been defined. I can sympathise with the other commenter above who said that it's a contradiction in terms.

It's similarly irritating as the "Christian" liberals who want to call themselves Christian but do not believe in God. Why are you trying to redefine the word? Who gave you the right to redefine what already exists? Come up with your own word to describe yourself! And the same should be said to the gay community- you're welcome to have your civil partnerships and you're welcome to have rights. But if you want the right to call your relationship a "marriage" all you're doing is trying to argue that a square is in fact a circle.

btw, great post Saltpetre.

Trav

Your argument is circular. “Gays can’t marry because marriage is between a man and a woman” begs the question of WHY marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman. Marriage is a social construct, so as society changes, definitions of marriage may change. Otherwise, we’d still permit polygamy and concubinage (there’s plenty of both in the bible!).

And why the left-field insult directed at “liberal” Christians? Who are these Christians that don’t believe in God, and how are they relevant to this debate? Or, are you implying that Christians who don’t agree with you aren’t “real” Christians?

Bwahaha looks like Gays are going to inadvertently save the institution of marriage by providing support for a practice which is being shunned in droves by heterosexuals. Oh, the irony of it all.

My question to Mr Croome is, what difference will it make?
Bully for you, you're compromising religious/conservative influence--though you're a bloody long way from any kind of watershed--on government, and throwing confetti on a few more hopeless romantics. But I wonder how many of them have a guernsey that they're doing anything beyond being a little bit naughty? I think for most gays getting married's more like foreplay than avant-gardism.
But let's suppose it is the end of conservative/religious hegemony, what positive effects can we expect to flow from that? The free market will have yet fewer constraints on it and we can all indulge our illusions of freedom a little more, but will it make Australia a better place, or its citizens more politically/ethically responsible? It's all very well purging the social bowels of centuries of religious constipation, but what ethical regimen should we observe after that in order to maintain a healthy digestion, so to speak?
Gay marriage is an abomination, not of the institution of marriage, but of the concept of emancipation.
Enjoy the reception into society, but how's that going to change anything?

WmTrevor

I'm not sure that I understand your point about influence in government, runner… It was you in another thread who said:

The point is that the Christian right has not got an imbalance in influence as shown by the fact we have an atheist feminist PM, a lesbian Finance Minister etc etc. Pointing these things out is not hateful Pelican. Or you are doing is showing your Christophobic bias which I suspect is quite hateful.

Put the matter to a referendum that asks only this question! Should we or should we not alter the marriage act, so as to include same sex relationships/couples. Ask the people and then let them decide; rather than a handful of blindfolded pulpit pounding "medieval" fundamentalists? Enough already. Rhrosty.

I am all for equal marriage rights:

The state should very equally withdraw from sanctioning relations between people
- friendly relations
- marriage relations
- sexual relations
- employment relations
- business relations

Consensual relationships of all types should be kept to the discretion of the individuals involved or anyone else they wish to share them with (family, friends, church, clubs, unions, etc.): why should anyone (straight, gay or anything in between) seek (and even pay for) a piece of paper from the morally-bankrupt Napoleons of the government to acknowledge and bless their marriage? The blessing of the state is equivalent to a curse!

'Ask the people and then let them decide; rather than a handful of blindfolded pulpit pounding "medieval" fundamentalists? Enough already. Rhrosty.'

I take it you are talking about the carbon tax Rhostry. Certainly their are far more people against it than they are for 'gay'marraige. Then again the selective 'democracy' is a dogma of the left and especially the homosexual lobby. The homosexual lobby refused the will of the people in California quite recently.

runner,
I don't have a Christophobic nature - I am not arguing Christians not be allowed to marry or stand for Parliament. Read what you have written about lesbians, feminists and atheists and try and see past your conditioned stance. I disagree, it is hateful to point these things out given your motive is not one of inclusion but of discrimination. One day you may see the effect this sort of hate speech has on young homosexuals. You are free to say what you want as I am to refute it.

Why can't a lesbian be a Finance Minister? You have given no logical or rational explanation - because there isn't one. I have great fondness for most of the Christian values and tenets eg of compassion and inclusion - why don't you?

Saltpetre
I enjoy your posts but why is social reform to include SSM "pushing the boundaries". In the 60s Indigenous Australians were not allowed to vote, women were not allowed to vote prior to the 19th Century, slavery was abolished.

At that time these were seen as pushing social boundaries. The litmus test for any change for me is 'do no harm'. What is the harm? We are not talking marrying animals or children, brothers or sisters as there is clearly a 'harm' factor and a matter of consent in the first & 2nd. It used to be considered alright for cousins to marry that is why the Royal families were often developmentally challenged - they were all inbred.

Banjo
I have already provided an explanation about priests and boys. There have also been many reported cases of abuse of girls in various churches. That does not prove a link between homosexuals and pedophilia. Pedophilia is pedophilia it is a whole independent and different animal including both abuse of boys and girls usually by men (but not exclusively).

Trav
Why not get rid of marriage altogether if you see it as purely a legal contract. We are talking about human beings here, with the same wants and need for acceptance and respect as any other person.

Squeers, I'm sure Ibsen would have laughed at your Enema Of The People concept, as did I. Brilliant.

Long ago I concluded that freedom does not simply mean the freedom to do what Steven Meyer (or Archbishop Pell) approves. So from my perspective gays who want to marry should be permitted to "tie the knot."

But at the same time I would like someone to give me a rational reason for outlawing polygamy or polyandry. I have the impression that many woman may prefer to share an alpha male than to have to make do with a "beta." If that's what they want why should they be barred?

In any case, it seems to me that to legalise polygamy and polyandry would simply be to recognise a fact of twenty-first century society life.

Marriage equality, what a farce. Call it what it really is, Rodney, true marriage redefined and corrupted from something of simple purity into some androgynous mess all to appease an over represented group masquerading as a victimised minority within the community. You cannot have two definitions for the one thing. Once gay marriage is introduced, marriage the faithful union between one man and one woman will cease to exist.
And five minutes after SSM is forced on the population the gays will do their little victory dance in the streets (followed by the usual orgy and visit to the gynaecologist), and will stomp on the true intent of what real marriage is all about. And will they be satisfied? Why should they be.

I'm gratified you enjoyed the metaphor, WmTrevor, though I should have laboured longer over it. To be honest scatology is an interest of mine and I have a slim volume called "The History of Sh!t", by Dominique Laporte. It's a scholarly work and the lay reader might find it it difficult to pass, but it makes up for that in texture and aesthetics. It's bound and black felt, with the title blocked in white, with the word sh!t rendered in gold leaf--I kid you not. I like to leave it lying around conspicuously when pious in-laws and sundry come visiting.

stevenlmeyer,
I agree entirely. Indeed I don't see why we should discriminate against other species. It's about time we demanded the right to marry our pets, Conjugal rights and all.
I have a 7 year old Shih Tzu I'm inordinately fond of and I think it's about time I made an honest bitch of her..

Squeers

What you and your pet do in the privacy of your home is none of my business.

I can think of no rational reason for outlawing bestiality either. The fact that I personally find it disgusting is not a rational reason.

Steven what I find more disgusting than Squeers attraction to bestiality, is the attempt to reinforce his obviously misplaced feelings of superiority with reference to his position of a scholarly work beyond the ken of the lay reader.

Such grandiose BS places him immediately in the "would be" class.

Pelican,
You avoided the issue of differences between same sex unions and opposite sex unions. There is a word to describe opposite sex unions which is marriage. There is a need for a word, or words, to describe same sex unions. One for the all male union and one for the all female union.

In relation to church sex abuse cases, even the extensive Irish inquiries into this only uncovered a few instances where priests abused girls. The vast majority were of priests abusing boys. That suggests to me that the paedophile priests also had homosexual urges.

It seems open to conjecture as to which urge had the stronger influence on the priests abuse of the boys.

Scatology, eh - now there's a theme I've neglected to ponder...although I once wrote an extremely satisfying uni essay on the history of British sanitation, a la Edwin Chadwick.

Why do you have to have a different word for same sex marriages? Is there a different word for when blondes marry or people from different ethnic backgrounds or for those who speak a different language...you get the drift.

Banjo
What is this focus on priests about in the context of this subject of SSM? You and others are ignoring the majority of child sexual abuse cases against girls. If the fact that some pedophile heterosexuals abuse children as well mean marriage should be banned for heterosexuals.

Pedophiles are attracted to professions where they come into contact with children especially where they are in a position of authority and the Church is one of those jobs. Churches have always been male dominated, priests, priests in training and altar boys, choirs etc. If a pedophile is seeking boys the Church is the place to dwell hence you will find them there.

That is not of course to say all priests are pedophiles. The shame is the Church took so long to remove these predators from access to children let alone criminal recourse.

I have worked with many homosexuals and have three members of family and extended family who are gay and there is not a pedophile bone amongst them.

Squeers and others
Likening SSM to marrying one's pet is tantamount to saying homosexuals are the same as animals. Clearly there is a matter of the mutual consent issue with animals and it is cross species. Does one have to point out the glaringly obvious.

Pelican said "Likening SSM to marrying one's pet is tantamount to saying homosexuals are the same as animals. Clearly there is a matter of the mutual consent issue with animals and it is cross species. Does one have to point out the glaringly obvious."

In case you haven't noticed, some of them are seeing themselves as the next big thing:
http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2009-08-20/news/those-who-practice-bestiality-say-they-re-part-of-the-next-gay-rights-movement/

Here's others on the way:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/three-in-marriage-bed-more-of-a-good-thing/story-e6frg6z6-1226218569577

http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/local_news/water_cooler/woman-entering-gay-marriage-with-building-scheduled-to-be-demolished

http://shine.yahoo.com/love-sex/bride-marries-herself-more-singles-throw-solo-weddings-202200537.html

Though this thread is getting a little weird, we will plug on.

Pelican,
>>why is social reform to include SSM "pushing the boundaries".<<

Somehow I think RMW's above post (with links) - regarding the 'Next Big Thing' (bestiality?) - perhaps says it better than I could - together with stevenlmeyer's comments regarding polygamy and polyandry. Where does one draw the line, and why? For myself the answer is obvious, but the problem is the division is becoming increasingly blurred and confused for so many others. Will some next be calling for pedophilia to be legalised? Or child pornography, or even the marriage of juveniles? Do any suffering from those particular (and perhaps other weirder) predilections not also deserve to have their rights protected and recognised?

OK, it may be quite unfair to lump homosexuality with currently unacceptable 'deviations', but do you not think SSM could only act to further blur acceptable boundaries - and for what gain? SS-Union provides recognition and extension of rights, so what is actually to be gained by pushing the envelope?

Society has taken a great and warranted step in recognising homosexuality as a simple 'variation' of the human condition, but for some this acceptance still remains difficult and confronting, and I doubt that a majority of society actually appreciates having gay rights splashed in their faces. Why? Possibly because not all homosexuality is just good clean fun.

There is a reasonable limit to societal tolerance, beyond which lies a minefield of uncertainty. I would contend that society is already going off the rails in terms of social liberties and personal responsibility, and I don't appreciate the current trend. Time to draw a line, and probably to take a step or two backwards in some respects.

P.S. It's a pity some have misconstrued Squeers' humour; they are missing a good thing.

Thanks for noticing my lame attempt at humour, Saltpetre. Actually I don't have a pet at all, and being 188 cm, there'd be a serious problem of scale if I was besotted with a Shih Tzu!
And yes, Pelican, the issue of consent must be problematic, we'll have to leave that conundrum to Peter Singer.
The only interest I have in scatology, Poirot, is the author I mentioned scandalously deconstructs our conceited notions of civilization and nation-building, arguing instead that modern life and sensibilities, and even the sanitation of language we practice, all derive from the history of sh!t management. Population growth and infrastructure and innovation have all been largely facilitated by how we deal with sh!t, since it's the most tangible by-product of consumption and the incubator of disease. Sewers and modern medicine are part of the history of sh!t management that has allowed our consumption-based civilisation to burgeon. But we remain in a closed system that's starting to pong. The broadscale sh!t we're in now, land, air and sea, can be argued to be the consumatum est of Western civilisation. A rather ignominious narrative compared with the fairy tales we generally flatter ourselves with.

But back on topic, in truth I completely respect the legitimacy of gay relationships and see no reason whatever why homosexuals shouldn't be entitled to the same recognition as any other couple--there's a downside though, for them; as couples their centrelink pensions would be less than they would be if they were cohabiting singles.
I do think stevenlmeyer has a point in that bigamy has religious overtones and there's no reason why men or women shouldn't have multiple partners; as he says, they very often do anyway.

My concern is that gays are getting more conservative, if they're taking marriage seriously, rather than that society is becoming more tolerant, democratic or enlightened. Although homosexuality, without artificial interventions, ought to preclude reproduction and thus result in less consumption and sh!t in the long term. Male homosexuality is also nicely symbolic of the overriding need for our civilisation to push sh!t back where it came from.

I wonder how much of homosexuality is natural urge or just a fad or force engineered.
Surely it can't help in making our society better if so many in very high office/authority are homosexual.
How dare faggots are drawing up policies for us normal people. This has to be hit on the head. I want normal people to set the guidelines not some deranged weirdoes.

symbolic of the overriding need for our civilisation to push sh!t back where it came from.
Squeers,
The problem we face with that is that eventually it builds up so much that it affects the brain & comes out of their mouths. Hence not much sense getting past their lips.

G'day Saltpetre… You threw the kitchen sink at that first post, but always an interesting read. Squeers... do we now know just how low you can get? Do you think Pomeranians are cute?

Like most here I've written my opinions on same-sex unions before, but since repetition doesn't seem to be a barrier to posting, I'll take another go.

That the government recognises and ensures same-sex unions have the equivalent legal status to heterosexual marriage – I'm satisfied with. The individuals in the various types of relationship will use whatever form of words they wish to describe their own situation regarless of the law… Numbers of people I know who are 'legally married' would describe themselves as 'together', 'separated for the moment', 'working things out' and so on. Some would even describe themselves as 'happily married'.

It is obvious many people regard the word marriage as precious – as is their attitude about the word and who gets to use it. Okay… Keep it. That way people can shut up about about how marriage is being denigrated or destroyed, since only heterosexuals will be allowed to be described as 'married' – only heterosexuals in such relationships can be blamed for all the problems.

All those who wish to be described as 'wedded' or 'espoused' et cetera, can then get on with their lives with as much mutual love, trust, support and reliance as they can manage.

Wouldn't that be nice?

Squeers,

"My concern is that gays are getting more conservative, if they're talking marriage, rather than society becoming more tolerant, democratic and enlightened...."

Nicely put.

Personally, I'm inclined to see the phenomenon as just another adaptation to life in the industrialised urban world. Living in vast impersonal urban conglomerations has hugely altered human experience. Individual rights and privacy are more likely to be legislated for, and any shift in social acceptance, as is presently occurring in respect to gay relationships, is likely to be pursued by its beneficiaries to win legal sanction.

(Just on the subject of industrial and urban life being made possible because of sh!t management. It's so true. Anyone who delves back to the dawn of industrialisation will realise that life among the new towns that sprang up to service the mills and factories was squalid in the extreme. People lived surrounded by dung heaps. If there was a putrid "privvy" shared by twenty or so tenements, then you were considered lucky. Sewage, drainage and sanitation in general, made the modern world possible. Everything we now take for granted flows from that point.)

Pelican,
We use different words to discribe different things or events, that is why we have words like ships and yachts, bulls and steers, bedrooms and kitchens. We have fingers and toes and everyone knows exactly what is meant. Imagine the confusion if we did away with the word toes and called them fingers. Further explanation would be required to define what was being spoken about.

There is a need for a different word to describe same sex unions because they are different to an opposite sex union, which we call marriage.

I have no objection to homosexuals having a legal union but there is no need to hyjack an already well defined word for that.

I think the only reason for homosexuals to want the word marriage is because it denotes a more respectable image generally.

Same sex unions are different and should require a different word to describe them. Perhaps we should hold a competition to come up with the best word or words.

Judging by individual's comments, "normal" is code for belligerence, intolerance and insecurity.

Nothing ever really alters in the historical narrative from the perspective of the white, middle-class puritan male.

In the late sixties early seventies, a paedophile was brought before the same Scottish judge for the third time. The judge gave him just two choices; endless incarceration, or a psychiatric hospital and remedial trails? Well,he chose the Hospital table, where tiny electrodes were inserted directly into his sex centres.
No activity was recorded when he was shown erotic pictures of women, adult males; but, all four centres lit up/went off the scale, when he was shown, lightly clad or nude boys? It was reasoned that the unusual attraction, was the result of all four sex centres firing.
So they burnt two out! The ones that normally operate in hetro females and attract them to men.
The end result, was a gradual change and normal hetro male sexual preferences. The last report saw him living as a normal heterosexual, with a wife and two children. He reported he'd never been more content or happier.
Then there is a recent case of a Sydney footballer; alpha male heterosexual, with a crushed cervical injury, C1, the result of a scum collapse. Apparently, some bone fragments entered and damaged his primitive brain, around the region of his "normal male" sex centres?
He was in a coma for some time and woke up Gay. Well, not immediately, but progressively over a period of months. He now works as a hairdresser?
These examples may led to day clinic neurosurgery procedures, that allow gays to chose to become "normal"? Particularly, where a extremely strong religious/moral conviction, leads to suicide as the only other acceptable option.
When we get around to doing/offering this, nobody will be left in any doubt whatsoever; that sexual orientation in all its unusual forms and guises, is naturally occurring biological aberration; rather than any product of choice or preference.
And those who have ostracised others and or family members; for the sexual equivalent of being born left handed, will be asked to account for for their obnoxious ignorance, knowingly deliberate persecution; and or, unconscionable discrimination! Rhrosty.

'Nothing ever really alters in the historical narrative from the perspective of the white, middle-class puritan male.'

Poirots bigotry can't be disguised. In Amercia it is most blacks who oppose 'gay'marriage.

Thank you, runner, for your splendid example of the pot calling the kettle a bigot.

Those "blacks" you speak of: I don't suppose that most of them attend chapels and imbibe sermons and attitudes historically cooked up by white middle-class "puritan" males?

RMW, saltpetre
"In case you haven't noticed, some of them are seeing themselves as the next big thing: "

But that has nothing to do with same sex couples. What some people see themselves as should not be distorted to prevent other basic human rights. Bestiality, pedophilia, child marriage are wrong on so many levels.

Many argued giving women the vote would be the beginning of the end. Imagine if the detractors of women's vote started saying "next there will be bestiality". One thing does not make another thing - if you get my drift. If there were any groups pushig for those things I would be there with you in the barricades so to speak.

I see no problem in where to draw the line and there is no blurring or confusion. I cannot see any problems arising out of SSM that would cause pause for thought. Sexuality as being taught or socially engineered - why would you even need to go there - just let be what will be. No advertising could induce me to become a lesbian, it is just not a natural inclination.

Squeers
Sorry I was a bit slow on the pick up - it did seem odd. Normally I get you. :)

My biggest grump with all this is the notion that SSM or homosexuality is linked so unfairly and disingenuously with pedophilia. It is as if anything goes to 'win' usually, it has to be said, a far right conservative religious argument. Heterosexuals and homosexuals have abused, most don't. Posters like runner have ignored this completely.

Banjo
Words like toe and finger have meaning, we need to distinguish between them what they are for a good reason.

Why would there be a need to distinguish between different sorts of marriages? Does it make a difference on a job application? People of different Christian denominations don't have to differentiate or buddhists or Hindus? We are talking about two human beings who have the same biology as every other human being albeit obvious genetic variations.

normal" is code for belligerence, intolerance and insecurity.
Poirot,
Once again you're either not getting the gist or you're deliberately misconstruing.
In Normality, the term normal refers to normal. No side-stepping, no weirdo sexuality, no idiotic intellectual outlandish views etc.
What you're on about & apparently promote is commonly known as abnormality.
Tell me what's belligerent, intolerant & insecure about preferring a straightforward system with no wavering in & out & around guidelines. No PC as in political correctness & poof..r cr.p.
Normal as where people go about their daily life without constantly disrupting others with nonsensical complexities such as religion & flaunting sexual behaviour as if normal sex were anything else but between a woman & a man. Bisexuality, trisexuality, asexuality or whatever where people screw their own brains is called.
We get enough verbal masturbation thrown at us every time we either read or watch anything from sexually disorientated intellectuals. Are you one of them Poirot because you always on the defensive ?

>My biggest grump with all this is the notion that SSM or homosexuality is linked so unfairly and disingenuously with pedophilia.<

I agree, Pelican. I've been friends with a few gay men and one of the main things I noticed was they were so much more sexually mature (figuratively) than straight men, who still have their insecurities and demons to work out. Gay men in my experience tend to be so much more open and relaxed about the sex act(s), seeing it as no big deal. I find it hard to see any of the gays I've known as opportunists or predators, it just doesn't go with the profile I've come to know a little. I think paedophilia is far more likely to be the province of "normal" men.
It's a despicable and shameless crock the way some conservative straights try to make gays their scapegoats!

Squeers,
You said, "I think paedophilia is far more likely to be the province of "normal" men".

If you read the case histories of Broken Rites, which assists those who have been sexually abused by church clergy, and the witnesses evidence to the Irish church sex abuse inquries, you would not believe or think that. The overwhelming majority, (guess 95%) was for homosexual acts by male priests. If interested, Belly gave some links in his recent thread about church sex abuse, you should read.

"Normal" men are not sexually attracted to other males.

One can only conclude that the paedophille priests were also homosexual. That is not to say that all homosexuals are paedophilles, but these certainly were.

Well, it looks as though our resident super-brain Rhrosty may have come up with a possible solution - a tweak here and a zap there, and the 'problem' might just go away. (Though the second case study presents a separate problem - a tweak too far, so to speak? And, no subsequent reversal possible?)

But again we enter the thorny field of individual human rights, and the right to individuality and self-actualisation. Where could this lead? Could psychology/psychiatry enter a bold new phase?

Homogeneous Humanity - attractive, or disturbing? Future, or futuristic? Electrodes, stem cells, even nano technology or genetic engineering? A new realm of possibility, and of moral, judicial, ethical, cultural and intellectual concern.

Some revel in their individuality, others do everything they can to 'fit in' - body make-overs, boob jobs, chin tucks and collagen, anti-depressants, anti-psychotics and mood stabilisers or Valium. Exhibitionists, strippers, captains of industry, and church mice too afraid to sneeze. Ministers of Religion and mass-murderers. Such diversity - and not all of it good.

We wrestle with conscience (some of us), while others have none. Better to 'snip' a paedophile or a rapist, I think, but we are 'enlightened' and will try all manner of implausible rehabilitation (even tolerance?) instead - we have become 'soft' and soft-headed.

SSM? Marriage as currently defined accords with a natural order, and all else is deviation. Is homosexuality genetic? What future? Natural genetic improvement and social accord, or increasing disarray?

Banjo,
this research http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html would seem to suggest that paedophilia is the province of no particular sexual persuasion, but of a fixation that transcends preference.
It seems to me extraordinary that a phenomenon that's so commonplace, past and present, is so little understood, when researchers split hairs of everything else imaginable. There's nothing online that takes a definitive stand one way or the other. I can only surmise that the research is inhibited/censored by prevailing social mores/political correctness. If it is a fixation it seems to me reasonable to speculate it's born of trauma. It's a well-known paradox that the victims of child abuse commonly end up as abusers. Once again, I feel like exonerating the archetypal gays I've known as just too liberated. I feel sure they'd be ashamed of taking advantage of an innocent. For the mature homosexual there's nothing in the notion of contraband that titilates.
I have a psychologist friend who assures me that latent homosexuality is commonplace in the male population (duh) but repressed, and that this is the most likely source of paedophilia, where the innocent victim is the softest option for the one in denial.
This of course is simplistic. As "in denial" doesn't mean he's missed his real calling; there's no saying where the denial begins or ends and surely it indicates confusion as much as anything else. I doubt anyone can be clearly sexually assigned. What is sexuality anyway but the stimulation of the imagination, and the chemical reactions that follow from that. Sexuality is time out and I'm sure the uninhibited and unfixated get more of a buzz, and time for meditation afterwards, than those of us constrained by notions of normalcy.

Pelican you ask

'Why can't a lesbian be a Finance Minister? You have given no logical or rational explanation - because there isn't one. I have great fondness for most of the Christian values and tenets eg of compassion and inclusion - why don't you?'

There is no reason why a lesbian can't be a Finance Minister or a atheist feminist a PM. That is the point. Have you not read the heading of this article 'Gay marriage will mark the beginning of the end of the religious right's disproportionate influence on Australian politics.

It is obvious with the godless mob we have in power that the homosexual and feminist lobby have a disproportionate influence on Australian Politics not the demonised religous right who seek to maintain some sort of a civilised society. Strangely enough many opponents of perverted 'marriage'come from outside of what you call the religous right. Even your beloved PM has stated openly she is against 'gay'marriage even now she isn't against adultery or fornication.

"Even your beloved PM has stated openly she is against 'gay marriage even now she isn't against adultery or fornication.

Runner, you know dam well the religious fraternity has the money-tree influence just like any big business and that's why our beloved leader has to play the truth down.

Its all to do with the cash flow, and not your religious rights that will change in times to come. The fact that all religions are about the money, and why you might ask?......Jesus never asked not one cent from anyone( if he ever existed ), unlike the sex-starved priests that do. Whats not normal, is the vows of celibacy which is completely ad-normal for any human to do.

.....and some wonder why pedophilia is so rifle with-in the church walls.

cc

plant3.1

at least get your facts right if you are going to have a Christophobic rant.

'Jesus never asked not one cent from anyone( if he ever existed ), '

Luke 18:22 And when Jesus heard these things, He said to him, Yet you lack one thing. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you shall have treasure in Heaven. And come, follow Me.

Jesus never asked not one cent from anyone( if he ever existed ),

I think you are confusing followers of Christ to followers of the gw religion where the HIgh Priests have made millions.

"I think you are confusing followers of Christ to followers of the gw religion where the HIgh Priests have made millions.....Your a hard man to convince:)....gw is a very real cause, and I think you know that deep down inside runner. The pope should have enough faith to change the worlds problems with one good pray....and if achievable, that would be worth paying for.

The money from the carbon tax that taxes the most 500 of the biggest polluters, at least that helps keep the causes that impacts the very fabric of our society.....and what does GOD do of late that helps all the little creatures he has made?

Religious money goes strait into things that helps nothing but influencing politics.

The carbon tax helps the poor more than all the religions combined.

I'll stick the HIGH Priests runner:) at least the money goes where it does the most help.

cc

500 of the biggest polluters,
plant3.1,
I suppose by the time those 500 spread the cost of the tax over the other 22 million polluters in this country they'll probably make a hundred fold profit from recovering the tax. it's really going to hurt them badly eh ?

WmTrevor, (10.34am, 4/5)

Thanks for the icon advice. I have wondered for years why I could not convert web addresses to words via html as I can on other sites.

I don’t understand your point about heterosexual couples.

The “religious right” is a funny term in Australia. The US religious right is a con to make poor people vote Republican. The nearest thing we have had to a so-called religious right party in Australia is Family First, and Steve Fielding voted to repeal WorkChoices. The term is just lazy.

Pelican (11.19am, 4/5),

There is no “denying marriage rights to two consenting adults”. All consenting adults have the right to marry; i. e., to form an exclusive and lifelong union with one person of the opposite sex. Strangely, some people who have this right and understandably do not want to exercise it demand that the word used to describe this right be used to describe the thing they actually want. They do so with the usual emotional appeals to equality, but it is as silly as lemons demanding the right to be oranges on the grounds of fruit equality or members of the Labor Party demanding to be called Liberals on the grounds of political equality.

If you wish the word “marriage” to be redefined to remove the “opposite sex” part, what is the argument? How is it different from removing the “exclusive”, the “lifelong” or the “one” parts”?

This thread has raised many intriguing issues. Since in law, marriage has to be accompanied with other life-factors such as division of property on decease of one party, or at divorce between parties, alimony payments, etc., one wonders how much Squeers would owe his Shih Tzu - and if payments are calculated in human- or in dog-years ? And if someone married a building, what are the consequences of demolition ? Or Heritage listing ? If someone married him/herself, how would divorce work then ? Division of property at the decease of one/both of the parties ?

More to the point, if same-sex unions are recognised, what happens for bisexuals, situation in which one party to a same-sex union wanted to also marry somebody of another sex ? When does 'normal' marriage necessarily imply the possibility of polygamy ?

Or, if one was alreasdy married, additional marriages involving Squeers' Shih Tzu, or a building, or a tree, or a photo of Rita Hayworth (as many adolescent youth would have loved to do), or of oneself, or of a photo of oneself at a much younger age ?

In other words, what would be the boundaries of polygamy ? And if polygamy - multiple marriages beyond male-female unions - then what are the legal consequences of divorce in these other cases ? Of inheritance of property ?

To try to get serious for a moment, there do seem to be - at least - three situations even for heterosexual unions:

* a couple loving each other, living together for life, but not bothering with any official union;

* a couple participating in a civil union, one recognised by the State, irrespective of recognition by a church;

* a couple, participating in a church-officiated union, irrespective of recognition by the State.

It seems that much of this discussion about gay 'marriage' blurs the boundary between State-sanctioned, and church-sanctioned, unions. I have no problem with

..... State-sanctioned unions of homosexuals, but any such unions sanctioned by churches is not the business of the State, only of churches and their parishioners, presumably their homosexual parishioners.

[Just as Squeers might seek the sanction of a church to marry his Shi Tzu - this does not have to involve the State in any way, except on grounds of animal cruelty.]

If we called one, 'civil unions' - unions recognised by the State, and the other, 'marriage' - those unions which are recognised by churches. From this perspective, Gen Y could marry themselves and seek to have their marriages (and later divorces) recognised by their local church rather than by the State.

If we stop trying to blur the boundaries between the two, that may resolve some of the confusion - and keep the business of the State separate from that of churches.

Apart from all that, I don't really give a toss :) It's not as if it's a real issue, like clean water for Third World villages, after all.

Cheers,

Joe

Doug Allen’s http://www.sfu.ca/~allen/samesex.pdf is the first paper I have seen to discuss the unintended legal and social consequences of same-sex divorce.
Allen says that marriage is an institution evolved over time to regulate incentive problems that arise between a man and a woman over the life cycle of procreation.
The real problem with same-sex marriage is same-sex divorce. Marriage includes a set of exit provisions in terms of the possible grounds for divorce, rules for splitting property, alimony and child support rules, and custody rules.
1. Many institutional rules within marriage are designed to restrict males from exploiting the specific investments women must make upfront in child bearing.
2. Since same-sex marriages are not based as often on procreation, these restrictions are likely to be objected to and challenged in courts and legislatures. To the extent divorce laws are changed, they may hurt heterosexual marriages, and women in particular.
3. Given that same-sex relationships are often made up of two financially independent individuals, there will be litigation and political pressures for even easier divorce laws since the problem of financial dependency will be reduced.

Alterations in divorce laws to deal with issues of same-sex divorce necessarily apply to heterosexuals, and these new laws may not be optimal for heterosexuals, making marriage a more fragile institution for them.

No-fault divorce laws influenced a series of other laws related to spousal and child support, child custody, joint parenting, and the definition of marital property. Many of these changes had subsequent impacts on the stability of marriages.

the social and legal characteristics of marriage may provide a poor match for the incentive problems that arise in the relationships of gay and lesbian couples. Putting all three relationships under the same law could lead to a sub-optimal law for all

Rodney how attend able you are? That was only an online opinion that I vote against,on same sex marriage. What Jim Wallace had state and quite well said that was possible open to be misleading!
That is evident that the pool had be grossly be misuse, by homosexual and lesbian with they supporter!
Every one with more that one email can vote multiple time, and we know that pro same sex marriage had act and still use all sort of tactic and intimidation and had resort to false and misleading way before and still doing, including intimidation and misuse of discrimination to the media.
The writing submission that are verified by name and address had be overwhelming supporting the existing marriage and also various court for example: The European Union, High Court of Human Right had established: that is not a human right same sex marriage, adoption and reproduction for same sex. At the end the majority of Australian's are against same sex, and your group are only damaging our democracy and freedom of speech in the name of false unreasonable, unfunded human right request.God Bless.

How depressing! As always we have those opposed to change arguing from either personal prejudice or religious prejudice by using fallacies, lies and avoiding facts, while those seeking change argue from the perspective of decency, concern for the welfare of others [trying to stop gay hate crimes, murders, blackmail and suicides] and restrict themselves mainly to facts.
Paedophilia is a case in point, in contrast to the hype, there are statistically more heterosexual paedophiles than gay, apparently.
Yale University’s Professor John Boswell unearthed controversial evidence in the 1970s that condemnation of same-sex unions is actually relatively recent. The church in earlier times, he claimed, accepted and celebrated them. So when the six Catholic bishops say: “the Government cannot redefine the natural institution of marriage, a union between a man and a woman”, the response today is “why not?”
The fourth, and for some the clinching discovery, is that gay and lesbian pastors, teachers and leaders actually do a great job. As do LGBT congregation members as they participate more and more.
These four factors are leading many Jews and Christians worldwide to welcome LGBT people and support gay marriage. It is not yet a majority. But heading that way.
In May last year the conservative Presbyterians accepted gays in ministry in both the USA and Scotland. Other denominations are following. In the Roman Catholic church pressure is building. Change is being urged from within. The matter of active homosexuals in the priesthood is now in the open. The impact of legitimate gay marriage on recruiting priests is being discussed. But no-one expects change soon.
The world is changing. Churches and synagogues are changing. The battles, however, have a way to go.

'The world is changing. Churches and synagogues are changing.'
True ybgirp however thankfully the Word of God never changes and will continue alot longer than yours or mine life.

"The Word of God?"

Really? According to who?

I thought the Bible could not be taken literally.
It was symbolic , and - was written by some men ages ago -
and we only have their interpretation of what did
or did not take place or what was said.
It was written in a language (words) that
today have different meanings - and in a context
that can only be applied to those times - not today.

cont'd ...

"It ain't necessarily so
It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so..."

runner
There are still more Christians in parliament than atheists and lesbians so if you are so concerned about uneven influences, using your logic we should balance out the equation and get a few more atheists and homosexuals, and what about Buddhists, Hindus and other groups?

No politician, Minister or PM is ever going to reflect exaclty what any of us think on every issue. An atheist PM is not necessarily going to oppose SSM or support SSM (you made the point with Gillard). The same goes with a Christian PM although it is more likely they will take your view even if not as violently. Many Christians are now calling for SSM within their churches. There is no point in writing nasty words about personal attributes of politicians just because you disapprove of their way of life. Many people may disagree with you but that does not stop you for standing for Parliament should you wish to, the same goes for lesbians, atheists, buddhists etc.

Whether a Minister is a lesbian or a heterosexual does not characterise or determine their stance on every issue. You speak as though a belief automatically defines a homogenous group.

Squeers
I hear you.

Chris C
Definitions, language and indeed legislation do not always remain static. In some cultures marriage is defined also by property exchanges or dowries, marriage vows have changed generally to exclude the idea of obedience.

What would be your reason for leaving 'marriage' as only defining a long term commitment between heterosexuals and not gays? What purpose does it serve. Clearly marriage is no longer forever, so it seems a bit nitpicky to me. But if it should pass that there are two sorts of marriages - hetero and gay then so be it.

Why do so many people (thankfully a minority according to surveys) so against SSM?

Pelican

'runner
There are still more Christians in parliament than atheists and lesbians so if you are so concerned about uneven influences, using your logic we should balance out the equation and get a few more atheists and homosexuals, and what about Buddhists, Hindus and other groups?

You miss the irony of your own post. It was the author of the article who claimed an inbalance of influence by the Christian 'right'. You should be making your comments towards the homosexual lobby as they are the ones claiming the victim status. I was pointing out that if anyone had an imbalance in power it was feminist and homosexual lobby of whom you always seem quick to defend.

'Really? According to who?

I thought the Bible could not be taken literally.
It was symbolic , and - was written by some men ages ago -
and we only have their interpretation of what did
or did not take place or what was said.'

Oh doubting Lexi. For me the words of Jesus are much much more reliable than yours.

Ah, but that's the whole point isn't it.
The words are open to interpretation - even
theologians disagree in so many areas. And
as I cited earlier:

"It ain't necessarily so
It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so!"

'The words are open to interpretation - even
theologians disagree in so many areas. And
as I cited earlier:

"It ain't necessarily so
It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so!"

Yes a very convenient way for those who choose to remain willfully ignorant. No wonder it was largely the uneducated that believed. Nothing has changed.

runner, I am so glad there is a limit to the number of posts permitted in a 24 hour period. Why don't you start a blog and rant your tripe from there instead of trolling here?

Advice to all, don't feed the troll.

The most compelling argument on this thread for treating the marriage question very carefully is JBR's erudite post (Sunday, 6 May 2012 3:56:34 PM) and the link he provides. It's not going into marriage that is at issue, it's the legalities surrounding the coming out of it concerning women, particularly, that need consideration.

It is only by defining "marriage" as between a man and a woman with the purpose of procreation that these considerations can be addressed. If, as a consequence, this affects those wishing to enter into barren elderly heterosexual relationships then so be it, a term other than "marriage" can be applied.

Simply put, there is a good deal more to "marriage" than love. What is it about the word that is so craved when a relationships can have love and legitimacy without it, or with a different term applied?

Thank you, JBR.

I doubt the religious right will vanish overnight. The 30-40% block that opposes gay marriage could easily contain the religious right. I think that gay marriage as a concept has entered the main stream and most people don't feel too threatened by it. Specially since it is still officially opposed by both major parties.

The RR must be having bigger fish too fry at the moment - though I am not sure what. Even if gay marriage gets through there is still plenty to fight for; asylum seekers, the mysteries contained in Sydneys Western suburbs etc etc. If that fails to excite there is always the true nature of the Eucharist or whether icons can be classified as graven images.

I often wonder what Julia Gillard was playing at during the labor conference. I find it hard to believe that the real Julia would oppose it. Accidentally allowing a conscience vote could have had some interesting side effects: as the liberals never have to tow the party line it could well have come close. That would have been some interesting politicking.

Hi Runner,

" ..... a very convenient way for those who choose to remain willfully ignorant. No wonder it was largely the uneducated that believed. Nothing has changed."

Own goal, Runner :)

Dear runner,

You keep making my point for me.

It is indeed the ignorant and uneducated that believe
that "nothing has changed," since the time the Bible
was written. As I keep stating : "The things that you're
liable to read in the Bible...It ain't necessarily so!"

Loudmouth
'Own goal, Runner :)'

Only if you believe the dogmas of the secularist/ evolutionist. With all their scientific degrees all they can come up with is that fantasy. No wonder so many educated accept man made gw as science. IT is also the educated who insist that a baby isn't a baby largely due to convenience. Most of the uneducated has more sense than that.

Runner's "god" ordered a man to kill his own child.

Either the legends of the bible are false, or they describe obscenities.

I regard Runner's religion to be invalid to comment on killing fetuses or children, or anybody else. "Moses" is alleged to have ordered the killing of children and I regard such a figure whether fictional or historical as unfit to instruct me or anybody else on "moral" or ethical issues.

Rusty

What I find most peculiar about this thread is the almost complete lack of any mention of children -apart from paedophilia.
Isn't that, or wasn't that the primary reason for marriage?
In my own case, my eldest daughter was 3 before I married, and the primary reason was simply that we found it more convenient for all of our immediate family to share the same surname.
It does seem a little ironic that Gays a making such a big issue about a convention more and more straights are finding irrelevant.
Personally, I would like to see more dedication to children by parents, whomever they may be. Perhaps instead of “til death us do part”, a solemn oath “til children are grown, us do part” would be more meaningful.
If Gays could provide good stable homes for orphans, or kids living on the streets, or in dire poverty, why not?
Call it what you will. Marriage is just a word, and as such will always mean different things to different people.

ybgirp (11.48am, 7/5),

No, we don’t have “always” “have those opposed to change arguing from either personal prejudice or religious prejudice”, but we do usually have those arguing in favour abusing those arguing against, as you do.

It is a fact that marriage is the lifelong and exclusive union of one man and one woman. That’s what it is. By definition, a man cannot have a marriage with another man – and it does not matter if either man is gay or not gay. Similarly, a woman cannot have a marriage with another woman, for the same reason. There is no discrimination involved at all, any more than there is discrimination involved in countless other cases where a thing is what it is and not what someone says it should be.

There are all sorts of domestic living arrangements. One of them is called marriage. Others are not.

Pelican (8.01pm, 7/5),

Definitions do change, but the question is not put that way. It is put as some great discrimination that one group may not do what another group may when in fact the first group may do what the second group may but doesn’t want to. All the first group demands, with the usual complaints and abuse, is the second group’s word.

If marriage is redefined to exclude “one man and one woman” from the meaning, there will be no word left to legally describe just a union of one and one woman. If gays want an exclusive and lifelong union of two men or of two women, all they need to do is come up with their own word.

Chris C,

So it's really all about pedantics it seems.

Anyhooo...it seems Obama calls it marriage.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-10/pm-reacts-to-obamas-support-for-gay-marriage/4003116

Chris your bias thinking saying marriage is between a man and a woman, when the english dictionary does not mention gender in the defination of marriage, other than take as a Husband or wife.
You stated that in some distant past you supported the decriminalisation of homosexuality, very magnamimous of you, though your attitude to acceptance of homosexuals is only on your terms, as to what rights they are entitled to, and it would seem as long as they don't scare your dog!
Nothing is being taken away from you, if same sex couples wish to make legal and public commitment to each other, you should rejoice that there is love in the world.
Love comes in many forms and is always beautifu

>>If marriage is redefined to exclude “one man and one woman” from the meaning, there will be no word left to legally describe just a union of one and one woman.<<

What if marriage is redefined so it includes "one man and one woman" but also includes "one man and one man" or "one woman and one woman"? As the apparent spokesman for L'Academie Anglaise what terrible fate do you think will befall us if we slightly change the definition of marriage so that it means "one consenting non-related adult and another consenting non-related adult" without mentioning gender? Will it rain blood? Will the dead rise from their graves and feast upon the flesh of the living? Will Flock of Seagulls re-form for a reunion tour? Or do you think it's more likely that there will be no negative consequences from changing the meaning of one word slightly?

What if we adopt marriage as the umbrella term for lifelong and exclusive unions between "one consenting non-related adult and another consenting non-related adult" and let the different camps worry about further sub-classification if they feel the need? Heterosexuals, lesbians and gays can all come up with their different words - if they want - but everyone will still fall under the category of married.

Cheers,

Tony

Poirot,

No, it’s not pedantic at all. There is a institution which has a word to describe it. Some people who are equally entitled to that institution don’t want it but do want the word that describes it to be used to describe want they really want. As I explained earlier, it is akin to carnivorous vegetarianism, a contradiction in terms.

Kipp,

There is no bias. I pointed out that I supported the legalisation of homosexual relations years ago to forestall the usual tactic of the pro-gay marriage lobby of accusing their opponents of bigotry, prejudice, bias, etc – not that it worked of course. The pro-gay marriage lobby regularly uses abuse as a debating tactic in the hope of silencing the opposition. That doesn’t work either.

You are missing the point. It is not about rights or acceptance. It never has been. These claims are just debating tactics. The fact that marriage means the exclusive and lifelong union of one male and one female does not detract from the rights of gays any more than the fact that a car is not a train detracts from the rights of people being transported from one place to another. If “same sex couples wish to make legal and public commitment to each other”, that is fine by me. If they want a lifelong and exclusive union of one man and another man and of one woman and another woman, that is fine by me. If they want legal recognition of that union, that is also fine by me. But it is not marriage, just as, in our society, one man cannot legally have two wives.

Tony,

Leaving aside the constitutional question that the power over marriage granted to the federal parliament had a specific meaning when granted and that federal parliament cannot redefine its powers to mean anything it likes (as that would destroy the federation), I don’t envisage any terrible fate if marriage is redefined as you suggest. But it would remove a meaning from the language on the most spurious of grounds.

It seems we do indeed need some new words.
What should we call the (overwhelming majority of) marriages that end in divorce? Should they be described as "proto-marriages", only to be officially ratified if one or both partners die?
Then...What;
Homo-Proto-marriage,
Lesbo-Proto-marriage,
Poly-Proto-marriage...
How about something a little more innovative, like homiage, or lesbiage.
Pericles might be heteriaged and Davidf might be blissfiaged...
Here's another thought: Why must people and their relationships be classified at all?

I wonder what moderate Muslims would think about this issue? And, could our approach possibly be of interest in the development or improvement of international relations? Should we care what other cultures, mainstream religious groups and nations think about or conclude from our Western tendency towards an increasingly laissez-faire cultural outlook? SSM - a step too far, or one to be applauded, or just another meaningless example of Western decadence?

While we tend to deride or snub our noses at radical religious groups, and particularly those with exceedingly restrictive, even punitive, approaches to individual rights, is our example more likely to induce some of these to move towards a more relaxed outlook, or to dig their toes in even more tenaciously?

We fear that which we do not understand, and we espouse the development of greater understanding through language and cultural studies, but do we really practice understanding and tolerance, or are we proven to be hypocrites by our arrogant disregard for the foundations and mores of other cultures with whom we share this shrinking planet?

Are we moving in the right direction, or could we be rushing blindly or conceitedly towards increasing isolation and division? The bigger picture, or narrow self-interest? Is a community of nations something worth striving for? If so, what we do matters.

What does the State term such unions - 'civil unions' or 'marriage' or both ? Or is it that the State uses the term 'civil union' while churches use the term, and recognise, 'marriage' ?

Either way, one problem with MAY arise with same-sex civil unions could involve a bisexual partner: if he/she enters into such a civil union, and later becomes attracted to somebody from the other sex and wishes to 'marry' them, is that legally possible ? i.e. are same-sex unions as binding as different-sex unions in relation to bigamy ? Could a partner be charged with bigamy who is in a same-sex union, yet also enters into a different-sex union ?

Or, of course, vice versa - somebody in a 'conventional' different-sex union who seeks to enter into a same-sex union: would that person be required to get divorced from their other-sexed partner before they can enter into a same-sex union, in order to avoid a charge of bigamy ?

Maybe it's a lot easier to stay de facto: that way, a person can enter into as many de facto relationships as they can physically and financially manage, without any charge of bigamy. So maybe it's a lot more convenient not to get 'married' at all ? How does the law of bigamy relate to de facto relationships ?

Just wondering :)

Joe