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"?