I argue that you are in fact anti-marriage. As you are denying the right of a group of people to share this institution. People who wish to marry someone are in fact supporting this institution not destroying it. Can you answer the following questions?

1. If you are defending marriage because "children have the right to be raised by their biological parents" do you support legislation preventing divorce?

2. If you "uphold marriage as the foundation of society, the right to procreate and have children" then do you support legislation preventing procreation within unmarried relationships?

3. If you are in fact concerned about the health of Australians, then wouldn't supporting life-long monogamous relationships have a positive effect regarding the spread of sexual transmitted diseases, not to mention creating a more stable environment for the upbringing of children.

4. Can you cite evidence that children are disadvantaged in stable monogamous homosexual relationships compared to stable monogamous heterosexual relationships?

P.S. Not only gay activists have called on Professor Kuruvilla George to resigned from the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission and attacks regarding your motives have not only come from the gay community. I am heterosexual and also a doctor. I disagree with you on both the moral and scientific aspects of your argument.

Perhaps you could give a better answer than Joe Hockey to this personal question asked on QandA. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuIbEJz23uY

I support the author of this article and his objectives.

The gay movement has become too extreme, too demanding, too intolerant.

Sociologically, marriage must continue as a union between a man and a woman, one that nurtures the children of that union.

Variations of this may be tolerated but should not be approved of because, to do so, clearly threatens the fabric and cohesion of society!

The reality Doctor is that the hmosexual lobby is Christophic. They detest not being able to create nature themselves. Whenever confronted with the fact that Christ did not design man to have sex with man or woman woman all reason flees and their hate is expressed. Your group expresses what most doctors I know also testify to. You must also remember that our National Broadcasters and other media outlets are far overrepresented with homosexuals than in other professions. Your group is 100% right that fatherhood and motherhood are both extremely important. To deny a child either of these things is to deny their human rights. The homosexual lobby want to continue to bring confusion to young ones growing up getting confused over mixed messages they receive. I suspect want kids to experiment with there lifestyle.

Dr Dunjey,
You have an obligation to rationally review all information about a subject - especially objective information - and discuss the pros and cons of all that information. You have failed to do so.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was produced in 1948, long before homosexuality was considered to be the inherent, innate characteristic it is - God-given, if you like.

Moreover, the UDHRs stipulation for the right for "men and women of full age… to marry and to found a family" does not stipulate for solely heterosexual marriage nor does it counter same-sex marriage.

Your article includes a number of misrepresentations and red-herrings. The few same-sex marriages that are likely to occur if same-sex marriage becomes legal are unlikely to affect heterosexual families other than through perception they might.

You are simply special pleading.

kids with same-sex parents are well adjusted ...
http://theconversation.edu.au/dont-believe-the-hype-kids-with-same-sex-parents-are-well-adjusted-6998?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=tweetbutton&utm_campaign=article-top

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Parented Families:
A Literature Review prepared for the Australian Psychological Society
http://www.psychology.org.au/assets/files/lgbt-families-lit-review.pdf

Conclusions
" ... the literature discussed here indicates that the family factors that are important for children’s outcomes and well-being are family processes and the quality of interactions and relationships. The research indicates that parenting practices and children’s outcomes in families parented by lesbian and gay parents are likely to be at least as favourable as those in families of heterosexual parents, despite the reality that considerable legal discrimination and inequity remain significant challenges for these families." [cont'd]

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS: Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/109/2/339.full

"Children deserve to know that their relationships with both of their parents are stable and legally recognized. This applies to all children, whether their parents are of the same or opposite sex. The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual.1–9 When 2 adults participate in parenting a child, they and the child deserve the serenity that comes with legal recognition."

Doctors for the Family, and a similarly-small break-away US religiously-based dissident doctor group, the American College of Pediatricians, dishonestly cite limited or false information!!

Penny Wong made a good point the other night on Q&A that the reality is that many children are born out of wedlock, but still can be raised by loving parents.

The problem here (seems to me) is that we need to separate the traditional/social/cultural aspects of marriage from the legal/contractual.

A conventional marriage involves a ceremony in front of friends, family, and a celebrant (either religious or civil). It also involves entering into a legally binding contract. De facto relationships are considered to become subject to the same legally binding contractual terms after certain terms are fulfilled.

I'm not sure about this, but if gay couples can enter into the same legally binding contractual arrangements that conventionally married and de facto couples do, then that surely delivers equality.

The problem is that the term "marriage" is loaded with a couple of thousand years of tradition and cultural meaning. Changing legislation will make no difference to that. In time, perhaps, the broad community may accept that term being applied to unions between gay couples.

However, in the interim, isn't the smart move to change the Marriage Act to a) ensure that the contractual provisions apply equally to conventionally married couples, de facto couples, and gay couples, and b) to remove the word "marriage" from the Act.

Separate the legal from the cultural.

"The gay movement has become too extreme, too demanding, too intolerant..."

Yes, how DARE they want equal treatment! But you forgot one: 'too uppity'.

But the test of the sincerity that 'Doctors the Family' is simply rising to the defence of marriage that you say is being attacked is negated by the fact that you are doing no such thing.

"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: the right for "men and women of full age… to marry and to found a family"" – no change proposed.

Happy yet?

"But we should not tamper with the ideal…" No one is tampering with your ideal – please carry on as before.

Happy yet?

But if you were genuine you would be agitating – and would have been agitating and so lobbying for a long while now – to rescind any and all statutes that permitted heterosexuals to have and raise children other than in their biological mother and father's single home.

That sound of crickets chirping is how much noise Doctors for the Family have made in caring about 'rights of the children' given the existing situation of families and marriages and child raising… You know, the ones that don't actually involve same-sex marriages.

Please demonstrate your genuine concerns by dealing with the current realities.

"…just because it sometimes falls down." Sometimes! Getting on for a majority of cases, depending on how you measure it, would be more accurate.

Your disregard and inaction to redress what might be categorised as 'non-ideal heterosexual marriages' speaks volumes.

Nor am I interested in being pursued.

I agree Herbert. However, I do not know of any religious group (or politician) that would support ending government regulation of marriage.

In my opinion this would solve many problems, as churches would be able to marry any people the deem "worthy" and the government could not prevent them from discriminating.

However this also means that the churches could not prevent any other group (church or other) choosing to marry people based on different values. This is the reason religious groups want government regulation of marriage - to enforce their policies of discrimination on groups within society that do not share their values.

Dear Dr Lachlan Dunjey,

I read your article with interest and I am sorry
that you have had abuse hurled at you and your
colleagues. That seems to be part and parcel of the
society in which we currently live where - reasoned discussion
degenerates into hurling abuse and screaming matches
about issues that people feel passionate about.
Instead of arguing the pros and cons - even politicians
seem to prefer slanging matches. A pity - because
nothing constructive gets achieved.

Of course we should respect opposing points of view.
A healthy society is not one in which we all agree.

Perhaps this particular issue - of same-sex marriage
could best be resolved by allowing a "conscience vote"
in Parliament by our elected representatives.
That would be a fair way to go in a secular
society such as ours and seeing as the majority of Australians
do support same-sex marriage. Possibly decades from now -
we shall all wonder what all this fuss was all about.
As they say - the only constant in life is change.
Difficult as it may be for some to accept.

Hi Lexi,

Would you also recommend a 'conscience vote' on whether women should receive equal pay for equal jobs, or whether Aboriginals should be required to sit at the back of the bus? A government that claims to support equal rights for all should have the guts to back it up officially with party and Cabinet policy. And a PM who claims to be an atheist should grow a spine and stand up to the nonsense 'arguments' of the religious right.

Lexi, you say: "seeing as the majority of Australians
do support same-sex marriage."

Let it be put to a referendum then. Surely that's the only way to test such spurious, wildly-exaggerated claims.

The state is all in all now, everyone believes their freedom must be mediated by it http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2011/07/community-and-liberty-or-individualism-and-statism/ All our secondary associations in civil society have been absorbed - the state plays father, husband, church, charity, employer, inquisitor, coach, trainer, and planetary saviour! (CAGW) All competitors have been defeated and liberalism and its state actors rule over us. We fund them to in order that they steal our local and personal autonomy and independence through regulation. Big money is umbilically tied to the big state - they work hand in glove - small business can't access the market.

Marriage and family are non-liberal, they are unchosen, given by nature and our sex, culture and tradition. As such they are inherently suspect under liberalism which is all about choice as such as the highest good. But when will/choice rules, the biggest will - the state - triumphs - and they know it.

These people who attack the Doctors see them as a direct threat to their access to state power, and so see them as an existential threat. When in reality our autonomy, and freedom DOES NOT GO THROUGH THE STATE - though they devoutly want everyone to think it does - but in the ways ozconservativeblog emphasises. The state and its journalists WANT everything lifted up to national significance, it increases their status and importance in everyone's eyes. And state actors foment this marriage debate but absolutely have no authority over it. It is a pretence, male/female marriage precedes the state and church. To reject the tradition of marriage rooted in our nature and children, opens up the precedent that the next generation can reject this new ssm tradition the state wants promulgated - it is self defeating.

Don't play into their hands, don't participate in their witch hunts. Starve the state. http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=1815

Those radical liberals the Greens, draw their life from the state and you pay their salaries, others want to get on board, liberal proposals like abolishing marriage are intoxicatingly attractive to these people.

Here here!

Excellent article.

It is so incredibly hypocritical that those on the left who preach tolerance and acceptance are the most hateful aggressive individuals and groups in society.

It seems that freedom of speech is only acceptable to the progressive left if you agree with their agenda.

Any consenting man (hetro, bi, gay), of legal age, can marry any consenting woman (hetro, bi, gay), of legal age.

There is absolutely no discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation at all. Marriage is remarkably non-discriminatory; one-man-one-woman regardless of race, sexual orientation, culture, religion...

I am so sick of this absolute nonsense that marriage is discriminatory.

I am also so sick of hearing bleating tantrums about the so called "rights" of adults to have their lifestyle choices validated by the tax payer. What about the REAL human rights of children to be raised by their biological parents?

I'd call INTENTIONALLY robbing an innocent child of a mother just to satisfy the lifestyle choice of a couple of men is the grossest form of discrimination and child abuse I can think of.

And before you get all "its not a lifestyle choice, they're born that way" on me, listen to this. 100% of heterosexual men are born with biological programing to be polygamous. We are not biologically born to be monogamous. But due to the social benefit of monogamy to child raising we make a lifestyle choice to be monogamous.

If I can make the lifestyle choice to go against my biological DNA and be a dedicated monogamous husband for the sake of my children and society then it can't be that much of an effort for homosexuals to make some lifestyle choices themselves for the sake of children and society.

DPE1978. "But due to the social benefit of monogamy to child raising we make lifestyle choice to be monogamous"
Then how come near 50% of hetrosexual marriages end in divorce or separation.

""Any consenting man (hetro, bi, gay), of legal age, can marry any consenting woman (hetro, bi, gay), of legal age.

""There is absolutely no discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation at all. Marriage is remarkably non-discriminatory; one-man-one-woman regardless of race, sexual orientation, culture, religion...""

Posted by DPE1978, Thursday, 17 May, 12:27pm

Exactly. Except the 'hardware' may be appropriate (male/female "fittings"), but the *software* isn't, right??!

Except that gay men & gay women were marrying hetero-women & hetero-women, respectively, because they felt compelled to conform to exactly that paradigm, didn't they DPE1978??!

That is why we have a couple of generations where kids are being raised by a homosexual parent who was formerly in a heterosexual marriage that produced kids, isn't it??!

So when you plead " ... for homosexuals to make some lifestyle choices themselves for [your definition of] the sake of children and society" do you really want these scenarios repeated??!

Why shouldn't those wired-to-be-homosexual be able to raise kids if they do can do it positively and respectfully for those kids?

Importantly ... There hardly is any "INTENTIONAL robbing an innocent child of a mother just to satisfy the lifestyle choice of a couple of men". The notion that innocent children are universally widely robbed of a mother is a gross misrepresentation; a straw-man fallacy.

'due to the social benefit of monogamy to child raising we make lifestyle choice to be monogamous"'

Seriously?

You stay monogamous for your kids? Do you not love your wife? Do you think her feelings are irrelevant and you're only worried that you'll lose the kids? Or do you think your kids will find out if you and your wife swing or have an open relationship?

As I must say again, I would like to be legally recognised, by the government, as the mother of my children. The government should change all its legislation to allow men to be recognised as mothers. We know mothers are the true nurturers of children, and being a 'mother' has stronger nurturing connotations than being a father. See even though I have all the rights of being a parent (as gays have in civil unions and defacto laws all the rights of being married), I want the symbolism of being called a 'mother'. It's just like gay people and that word 'marriage'.

I don't think it's too much to ask for the law makers to re-write all their books and change the meaning of any word for feel-good symbolism.

Conversely, I have made no contract with my partner, yet the state has enforced a contract on our relationship, designating us 'de-facto', and imposing mutual responsibilities on us. The state has effectively made it illegal to live together, have children, and remain non-married. That choice, in an attempt to give gay civil unions the same rights as married people, has been taken away form me.

So I agree with Herb too. Let them just piss off defining relationships and have an equal, opt-in (rather than the compulsory de-facto laws) civil unions for any two people, and let the churches worry about 'marriage'.

And I agree with Stezza, Thursday, 17 May 2012 10:00:56 AM

I think the reality is is that many of the so-called "religious right" and their supporters are simply bible bashing fruit cakes who desire to inflict their own beliefs on others and have little to no regard for the religious and other beliefs of others.

Their are those of other religious persuasions who hold that the basis for "marriage" is love, not gender or sexual orientation.

I am certainly of the view that if the allegations regarding *RatSingers* (amongst others) deliberate and willful cover up for pedophiles is true that he should be arrested, subjected to corporal punishment and locked up for the rest of his days and if indeed they are wide ranging and institutional, that they should be stripped of their titles and have their property confiscated.

What a sick joke it is that these people are even heard.

A higher regard for "Freedom of Religion" would also go a long way to resolving this issue.

I would remind you that from amongst the ranks of the political churches we also have a long history of baby and child theft, not limited to the so called "Stolen Generation." Those responsible deserve the harshest of punishment in my opinion.

Thank you, Lachlan, for making this stand along with Doctors for the Family.

In the course of events it has been implied that doctors should not be opposed to same sex marriage; or if they are, that they should keep their opinions to themselves. For example, Dr Steve Hambleton of the AMA was repoted as saying that "doctors must be mindful of putting their opinions forward because they hold influential positions in society."

In context, he is clearly saying that if a doctor is against gay marriage, he or she should keep quiet about his or her opinion. What ever happened to free speech? Do we now gag any doctor whose opinion differs from the majority? Is that the kind of society we want to live in -- where only "approved" opinions are allowed to be expressed in public, and other opinions are censored?

Every doctor knows (or should know) that the homosexual lifestyle is associated with higher incidences of physical and mental illness, and a higher incidence of drug and alcohol abuse, compared to heterosexuality. And we should reject the simplistic and unsubstantiated explanation that this poorer health is caused by discrimination.

It is claimed that there is no evidence children raised in a homosexual household are worse off, but this claim is not based on sound evidence, as this press release explains.
http://www.acl.org.au/2012/05/mr-gay-activists-claim-commissioners-scalp-on-back-of-flawed-research/

I applaud Doctors for the Family for being willing to voice their concern for the wellbeing of our nation's children.

Dr J Kok MBBS

Dear Dr Kok… (Ahem, sorry I was distracted by a rogue thought)… I have no desire to gag you.

You say "It is claimed that there is no evidence children raised in a homosexual household are worse off, but this claim is not based on sound evidence, as this press release explains", when in fact the press release says no such thing and I fail to see how you could have drawn that conclusion.

Equally the original Doctors for the Family submission was flawed in its reliance upon research based on examinations of fractured heterosexual relationships.

I assume that you are aware (or should know) there are sociological studies showing that doctors have higher incidences of mental illness, drug and alcohol abuse compared to other professions. Nevertheless, we should reject the simplistic and unsubstantiated response to discriminate – including denying them the right to an opinion freely expressed.

If Doctors for the Family turn "their concern for the well-being of our nation's children" to the existing and real issues of sexual, physical and emotional abuse – none of which derives from same-sex marriages – I will applaud them.

When did equal opportunities come to be synonymous with support of same sex marriage?!
And when did abusive language and vilification of pro same-sex marriage supporters against those who differ become acceptable? This too is discrimination!

"Then how come near 50% of hetrosexual marriages end in divorce or separation."
Posted by Kipp, Thursday, 17 May 2012 1:05:01 PM

Good question. But the real question you need to ask is how long do most marriages last (even those that end in divorce).

The answer is 80% of heterosexual marriages last over 20 years. 20 years is enough time to raise children in a healthy biological mum/dad environment.

Less than 2% of homosexual partnerships last more than 4 years.

(Note: before you go all "where's your references for those stats" on me - why don't you just look them up for yourself. You and I both know none of you pro SSM people would put an ounce of credibility in any source a conservative posts - no matter how impartial and factual - so check these stats and facts yourself so that you will know the truth on your own).

So in reality heterosexual marriages 80% of the time last long enough to provide for child raising.

If you take your logic to the n'th degree technically 100% of marriages end when either one of the partners dies.

"There hardly is any "INTENTIONAL robbing an innocent child of a mother just to satisfy the lifestyle choice of a couple of men"
Posted by McReal, Thursday, 17 May 2012 1:07:01 PM

Ummm. Yes there is McReal. By definition 2 men = a motherless family. If two men set out to INTENTIONALLY acquire (for lack of a better term) a child; they are absolutely specifically setting out to deny that child their biological mother. This is just a biological fact. 2 men can not produce a child.

Houellebecq - I stay monogamous (and go against the very same biological, from birth, DNA urges that drive gay people) for a multitude of reasons (including that I love my wife very much), but primarily because I respect the social contract that monogamous biological mum and dad teams have been proven since the dawn of time to be by far the best environment for children to be raised in.

If I can deny my biological urges for the good of society, why can't gay people?

Take 10 seconds a google "statistics for kids without mothers" and "statistics for kids without fathers" and see the heartbreaking tidal wave of overwhelming evidence that motherless and/or fatherless children are vastly worse off. It is a form of terrible child abuse to intentionally do that to a child.

DPE1978 Is there love in that marriage, or as mentioned staying together for the childrens sake.
Have you any statistics on average, how long a hetrosexual marriages/relationships last, of course not, you just throw figures around to suit your bigoted attitude towards those you dislike, and do not conform to your extreme fundamentalist beliefs.

Yes indeed, it's LEXI's comments that seem to make the most sense to me.

Her remarks apropos permitting a conscience vote in Parliament, are most reasonable I believe. An issue seemingly as controversial as this should be decided by a vote. Allowing politicians to exercise their true beliefs without pressure being applied by their respective leaders.

Personally, I'm of the view that marriage should be between a man and a women, as it's always been. There again, I'm often described as a dinosaur. But I manage to get by. My view though, it doesn't necessarily follow that I'm wrong.

When I first donned 'blue', we often locked up those who engaged in certain homosexual practices, as well as those who were soliciting for these practices.

Then the law changed, homosexual behaviour became legal, provided it was between consenting individuals. Therefore, I don't really understand why it needs to be formerly ratified, by the ritualistic processes of a formal marriage rite.

Providing all the necessary legal measures are observed to ensure that a gay couple may enjoy the same legal remedies, that are ordinarily accorded to married folk - Including where necessary, the lawmakers making adjustments and amendments to some of the more complex legislative protocols that can be found in matters similar to that of succession and family law. I don't quite understand why it's necessary at all, to recognise such a union by some formal ritual ?

Or is it just a case where there're some who wish to be recognised as the third, gender demographic, within mainstream Australia. Will we see in our schools of the future...male, female, and homosexual ?

On the radio recently I heard a gay person describe (modern) homosexuallity as being normal. How so ? I accept, most humans possess the emotional proclivities of committment, love, companionship etc. All quite normal. Beyond that, I'm not so sure ?

If I'm seriously in error, help me out please.

o sung wu, you missed out love and commitment, and to have that legally and publically recognised by same sex couples, contributes to that same sex couple, the foundation for love and happiness for their lives together.

This isn't about Gays seeking equality,as much as its about the Left's attack on what it sees as the institutions of the Right, and particularly an attack on the religious Right. The fact is that only a minority of Gays will even seek to marry and very few have ever considered a formal union necessary in any way...until now. Really, does anyone believe that Gays have always needed their unions somehow legitimised by formal marriage?

Gays want the title of 'marriage' and hence the institution of marriage rather than just the legal privileges and rights which go along with it. This suggests that it is about more than a 'need to be treated equally'.

Thank you so much Dr Lachlan for you inspiring article. There are not many professionals speaking out against same sex marriage because its not trendy or PC.
Your argument that its not about hating the gay people but about the importance of marriage between man and woman is brilliant.
My congratulations to all of those who signed the submission in support of traditional marriage

"By definition 2 men = a motherless family. If two men set out to INTENTIONALLY acquire ... a child; they are absolutely specifically setting out to deny that child their biological mother. This is just a biological fact. 2 men can not produce a child."

Posted by DPE1978, Thursday, 17 May 2012 6:13:11 PM

If a man or 2 men raise a child, for some or all of the childs up-bringing, in a household without the biologicsl mother in the household, that does Not mean they are denying that child their mother!!

* The child and mother may still have regular loving contact,
* The mother may be dead, or unknown or not available to the child for a number of reasons;
etc.

Your black and white proposition of heterosexual parenting or no mother is a black and white fallacy; it is a false dichotomy!!
..........................................................

Dr Jereth Kok MBBS, Thursday, 17 May,2:46pm

Dr Steve Hambleton of the AMA is implying sociological & psychological research is far more important than base assertion and opinion, especially biased opinion.

It is true that "there is no evidence children raised in a homosexual household are worse off" - the so-called research of Robert Lerner and his wife! Althea Nagai, mostly commissioned by the biased Marriage Project, is disputed by many.

It would be more appropriate for you to comment on the articles & conclusions by reputable authorities that I posted above @ 9:14:36am

Thank you Dr Dunjey for your article and standing strong on the issue of same sex marriage.

Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. While it's true that marriage was around before Christianity, God created marriage and when he did so it was between a man and a woman, it's only through the evil schemes of man that same sex marriage has come about.

Every child deserves a mother and a father, we can not allow these basic rights to be overtaken or perverted.

It's time for all Christians to take a stand and defend the sanctity of marriage.

To all that believe that marriage is a religious institution, thus follow the religious values and traditions they believe, why don't you lobby the government to repeal the Marriage Act, thus preventing marriage becoming a secular institution? This way the government would not have any say in who your religious group decides to marry. So far no-one has given me an answer on this.

If you do want the government to regulate marriage you have to accept that it becomes a secular institution, available to change based on the values of all people (including non-religious people). A secular institution is able to change to promote values different to your own.

So if you are really defending marriage, instead of attacking the "homosexual lobby" or other bogeymen, perhaps you should be attacking government for taking away your control of the institute of marriage.

PS. Of all the talk of "attacks on freedom of speech", so far this forum has been more polite than most, with minimal name calling/mud slinging. The thing that is missing is a defense of the arguments put forward by the Doctors for the Family. It is obvious to anyone who reads their citations that the evidence cited does not support their claims.

To be fair to the gay community, I can appreciate that many or possibly most would ache for a long-term and hopefully life-long stable committed relationship with a loving and faithful partner. We are all human after all, and the need to 'belong' is built into our genes. I can also appreciate that some in a strong and lasting relationship may seek to raise a child, to further strengthen their bond, and to pursue a higher degree of completeness and of normalcy in their relationship. This is also part of being human.

Unfortunately it appears that very many will go unfulfilled in such desires, just as is so often the case in the straight community, though possibly even more so, given the inherent complexities of leading an openly gay lifestyle in our still somewhat resistant culture. Statistics regarding the longevity of gay relationships would also tend to confirm the level of disappointment. The incidence of psychological problems also does not auger well for the chances of forming lasting and stable relationships.

From an overall perspective it would unfortunately appear unlikely that very many gay relationships would ever warrant categorization as marriages, and unlikely that a large proportion of gays would ever seek to marry in any event.

Would even one successful gay marriage warrant a restructuring of the current understanding of marriage? Somehow, much as I may commiserate with the gay position, I do not think the rare exception should make the rule, but rather that the provisions relating to de-facto couples could reasonably suffice. Is the gay psyche different? I tend to think so. Could this change? I can only try to keep an open mind.

You know you're getting old when what you find hardening most often is your attitude…

Which is good news for you, Saltpetre and o sung woo (amongst others) – both fast marching towards spring chickenhood…

However, I find myself heading towards decrepitude in my increasing intolerance of the hypocrisy of those who protest they're 'protecting the family' when their silence and inaction on existing and real problem issues shows they're doing no such thing.

Successful or unsuccessful partnerships, good or bad parenting are not defined by sexual or affectional preference.

Nor are they defined by certification – by either the State or a religion.

The so-called Doctors for the Family have made a misdiagnosis and are offering no prescription to cure the disease.

(Vale Donna Summer)

Trev and Saltpetre's arguments are Stezza's posts are sound. Irrefutable, I agree with them all.

I think they aren't contradictory either. What grammar!

I'm with trev, the motives are pretty clear to me. But so to the motives of the 'Gay Lobby'.

I have the luxury of not really having a stake. I'm not a steak-holder. Away form the BBQ. I'm agnostic, living in 'sin', and my arguments are purely philosophical.

But I find it interesting the deception and self-deception of people arguing their point.

Kipp,

'and to have that legally and publically recognised by same sex couples'

It is legally recognised and publicly recognised. What are you talking about. I don't think many people don't want same sex marriages having the same rights, and most people accept that gay people can and do commit. Sometimes.

But they just don't want to call it marriage.

Just like people just don't want to call me a mother.

They want to let me have the same rights (Or I would argue slightly inferior rights, based on the stereotype of the all nurturing mother, the life-giver, family court and all that) as a mother, they recognise I am a parental care-giver, and that I can have a similar (but not quite the same) relationship with my children, but they wont call me a mother.

Why, because mothers are women. That's life.

Having said that I can understand that after going through a lifetime of having your sexuality and your identity ridiculed, deionised and told you're not natural, or less than heterosexuals, getting to be called married just like they are would seem like a worthy aim in feeling accepted.

But from my armchair, I would say gay people who want this are mistaken in what they think it will do for them. I don't think it will bring about the changes they desire, on a personal or societal level.

I believe the day same sex marriage is accepted is the day after the changes it is supposed to address have just happened by natural attrition.

Hope you don't mind if I deviate for a moment, but WmTrevor brought back an intoxicating memory by remembering Donna Summer.

I was seventeen and leaving the city to return to my family in the country. I was endeavouring to catch the night-sleeper train one cold winter evening. In tow were three dazzlingly handsome gay male colleagues and friends who were assisting my departure by driving me and my luggage to the station. Donna Summer was playing in the car as we sped to the station. We were late!

My enduring memory is of the four of us clattering over the wooden bridge, to my platform, the train ready to pull out of the station, and me hanging out the door receiving passionate embraces and a goodbye kiss from each of them - just like a forties movie.

(I would have married all of them given half the chance : )

Was that the blurb for a new book, "Diary of a Fag Hag"?

Now, now, Houllebecq…

As you consistently prove you don't come to this issue with a rigid stance – I shall be pleased to simultaneously regard you as both a spring rooster and a mother to your children. 'Whatcha cock!'

Any chance of getting official recognition for being the neonatal mother?

You know very well we are in total admiration of your deviation, Poirot – I'm not referring to your septum…

Houellie,

Those men were some of the best friends I've ever known. They were gorgeous in spirit, in demeanour and in looks. I met them while working at a big old-fashioned department store. I don't know exactly why, but that period of my life is one that shines above all the rest. It was uncomplicated and I was surrounded by friends and colleagues who watched out for me and were kind - straight and gay.

I've not experienced anything remotely like it since

Houellbecq, Same sex relationships are only registered and known by Centrelink, when same sex couples are receiving any Centrelink payments.
This means that only a small number of committed and loving same sex couples, go to the Dole to register their being.

I think that if the not so learned doctors are wanton members of the *A.ustralian $M.oneyGrubbers$ A.ssociation* that they should declare that.

And again, what I mean by that as said on numerous prior occasions, is that they are of the sort that refuse to bulk bill and or otherwise turn people away and refuse to provide treatment in the absence of an individuals ability to pay their outrageous fees.

Further, if they are wanton members of the church of the rock spider or similar then they should also declare that.

..

I am reminded about an investigative journalist report on some of these religious fruitcakes visa vi the so called school chaplain program. In public, they lie and deny and express the guvment line. But in private, they espouse the virtues of having a closed market of children to preach their dribble. Of course, in the aftermath, they continued to lie and deny this.

..

I believe that when you get to the bottom of the mentality of these people, what we find are individuals who are convinced that their own believes are fact, and convinced of the rightness of professing and imposing this on everyone else at every opportunity. It is a common problem worldwide whether considering fundamentalist Muslims or their so called christian right counter parts.

..

The reality of course, is by an abuse of the democratic process, they seek to impose their own theocratic values.

..

In my view their obvious flagrant disregard for those Christians and others who do practice a religion which offers the sacrament of marriage without discriminating in terms of sexual preference goes to support the view in my opinion that they are truly bigoted little homophobes. And clearly, by their distinct lack of ability for quality, reasoned and rationale debate, non too bright either.

I have always assumed that a lifetime commitment
to each other was what marriage was all about.
I didn't realise it was about one's sexual orientation.
And that only certain people of a certain sexual
orientation were supposed to be "married." To me that's
simply not logical.

I understand that some people desperately want to get
married. There is an innate part in all of us that needs
ritual and ceremony. I am happy that I did, and I don't
think anyone should miss out on what is essentially a
beautiful day. But through my experience, I have come
to understand that the day after the wedding is just the
next day. It's a new day, and then the next day is just the
next day after that.

And if that sounds like an excuse not to work at the
relationship, it isn't. If anything, it makes us work
harder. I wake up evry day with the intention to be
loving and happy and the best I can be.

I wish all consenting adults - the very best possible
happiness. And if being maried is what they seek -
and they love each other - who am I to deny them that right -
when it's been granted to me. What makes me so special -
simply because I happen to be of the right sexual
orientation - and fit into the right category - that
someone decided what marriage should be. That's too narrow
for today's world and needs to be changed - as according to
the latest polls - more Australians support same-sex
marriage - than don't. Again, I stress - we should allow
a conscience vote in Parliament (or a Referendum).

I have the feeling that sooner or later - this issue will
be resolved. It won't be a question of "If" but "when."

'That's too narrow
for today's world and needs to be changed - as according to
the latest polls - more Australians support same-sex
marriage - than don't. Again, I stress - we should allow
a conscience vote in Parliament (or a Referendum).'

So Lexi you agee that the PM should of had a conscience vote or a Referendum on the carbon tax after lying to the public. Or is it only on issues you believe a referundum suites your cause. For that matter lets have a referundum on whether we should open Nauru.

What you need to ask yourself, runner, is whether Jesus would vote to reopen Nauru?

Dear runner,

Whilst you have the right to an opinion -
you always seem to abuse that privilege.

Poirot

In case you missed the article it is about 'gay' marraige. My reference to Nauru was exposing the hypocritical and selective use of referendums.

btw I did not know that suddenly you thought highly of Jesus view.

*What you need to ask yourself, runner, is whether Jesus would vote to reopen Nauru?*

Lol Poirot, great question for runner :)

We know however from evolutionary psychology studies, that tit for
tat is far more successfull then turning the other cheek, so in
that sense, Jesus was a failure.

'What you need to ask yourself, runner, is whether Jesus would vote to reopen Nauru?*

Lol Poirot, great question for runner :'

Well Yabby as One who endorsed Genesis you can be sure that Jesus is repulsed by man's idea of 'gay'marriage. He would however offer forgiveness to those willing to repent.

runner,

I believe Jesus would be repulsed by intolerant and judgmental windbags vaunting their bigotry and narrow-mindedness in his name.

Yabby,

You might like to instruct runner about the "turning the other cheek" clause. He doesn't appear to have read that bit.

*you can be sure that Jesus is repulsed by man's idea of 'gay'marriage*

Well I'm not so sure about that, runner. Jesus would have preached
tolerance. Given that his father created gays, are you suggesting
that God is some kind of sadistic/masochistic freak?

Sexual attraction is innate, its not about choice. Just like
when the first time the wife dropped her negligee and you were a bit
younger, you did not choose to have that erection, it just happpened.

If you think its a choice, then clearly you could choose to have
an erection at the mere sight of another naked male! Sheesh,
runner the closet gay, now that would be a story :)

Did God create gays? Or, the Devil? Or, simply the natural process of evolution? (You don't think a gay child could be either a reward or a punishment for good or bad parenting perhaps? Or, for achievement or failure in a 'former life'? A bit unlikely, wouldn't you say?)

Now, there's a good reason to believe in evolution, wouldn't you say? Or not, depending on which side your bread is buttered.

So much tells us that gay-ness is a natural biological phenomenon, but there is no disputing that it is a divergence from the majority 'condition' (unless of course there are a huge number of closet deniers). It must also be clear that gay-ness is counter to success according to the Laws of Natural Selection. Hence, is gay-ness due to die out in due course? Could its current incidence correlate perhaps with the rise in juvenile diabetes, asthma, etc, and hence possibly be linked to something in our diet - or, more specifically to the diets of birthing-age mothers?

Is gay-ness perhaps an inheritable trait? Are the children of gay couples more likely than not to be gay? - meaning those created using biological material donated by one of the partners. (Or, can gay-ness skip a generation or two?) Given that the vast majority of gays would have to be the progeny of supposedly straight parents, the gene responsible would have to be exceedingly resilient, and lurking generation after generation before re-emerging. One tough so-and-so.

Gays do brighten up existence nonetheless (especially the guys), and the world would be the lesser without them. They do deserve a fair go, but in view of the special place they hold in our hearts, and in each others, I somehow think they deserve something brighter, more colourful and more dynamic than mundane old marriage. Don't you think?

Poirot

you certainly ain't slow in beinging Jesus into this arguement. As I said before I doubt whether you are really interested in HIs view. You seem more intent on bigotry.

>>You seem more intent on bigotry.<<

It seems you need to buy a new Bible runner. Yours appears to be missing the Gospels. They are fairly important. Here's something that you may have missed because your abridged version of the Bible ends at Genesis:

Matthew 7:3-5
KJV

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Cheers,

Tony

runner,

"you certainly aint slow beinging Jesus into this arguement..."

Well that's the pot calling the kettle black!

"...I doubt whether you are interested in His view..."

On the contrary, I'm interested in the contrast between "His view" and your exalted and arrogant presumption that your words and style accurately represent it.

Here's a tip for you, runner. You don't represent his view very well. You fire away, all guns blazing from behind the ramparts of Christianity as if your word was a pronouncement from on high.

The fact that you habitually employ your self-styled status as a professed Christian to admonish fellow posters and pin insulting and derogatory epithets on them is shameless. I know plenty of Christians who strive quietly and humbly to emulate the example of Christ. They exude a humility quite unlike the venomous prose that you regularly daub around this forum.

You appear to reflect the more unsavoury aspects conjoured out of the movement called "Christianity" - you consistently fail to reflect the simplicity of Christ's message

Poiret
'On the contrary, I'm interested in the contrast between "His view" and your exalted and arrogant presumption that your words and style accurately represent it.

Your track record indicates otherwise. What don't you understand about Jesus clear reference to marriage?

' For this cause a man shall leave father and mother and shall cling to his wife, and the two of them shall be one flesh? '
Mathew 19:5

Runner, what don't you understand about Jesus' clear reference to divorce?

Remember this from verse three, before your selective quote:

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

If "The one who can accept this should accept it" then it follows that "The one who cannot accept this should not accept it."

But all of this is irrelevant to the specifics of the article – but I'm confident that such misrepresentation was behind its motives.

WmTrevor

'Remember this from verse three, before your selective quote:'

v3 does not nothing to negate the fact that Jesus explains what the original intention of marrigae was by quoting from Genesis.

Twist all you want but I again put it their for you to read. I suspect you deliberately ignored its intention because you were to quick to think you caught me out.

' For this cause a man shall leave father and mother and shall cling to his wife, and the two of them shall be one flesh? '

cling to his wife in case you missed it again

No twisting on my part, runner, and I neither want nor need to…

I suspect you deliberately ignored the intention of the passage because you had to - seeing as how Jesus was talking about heterosexual divorce.

Please just let us know for future reference if every verse in the Bible is available for literal use, personal interpretation and without context.

Nothing about same-sex unions – and remember, only "The one who can accept this should accept it" in case you missed it again.