The issue is not to “legalise gay marriage” as it is not illegal in the first place. It is non-existent, in the same way that carnivorous vegetarianism is non-existent. Marriage is the exclusive and life-long union of one man and one woman. If gays wish to form an exclusive and lifelong union of one man and another man or of one woman and another woman, they are free to do so, but such a union is not marriage. If gays wish to have formal recognition of same-sex unions, they should have it, but it is still not marriage. It is beyond satire that this attempted word theft is still being dressed up as a human rights issue.

If gay marriage was sustainable it would've started thousands of years ago. The entire gay marriage campaign is simply "first world problems", or more precisely, shows the extent to which civilisations struggle to cope with peace and prosperity, and how they seem to get to a high point, and then go about attacking itself.

"Word theft", Chris C?

>>It is beyond satire that this attempted word theft...<<

Let's take a look at your own personal definition for a moment.

>>Marriage is the exclusive and life-long union of one man and one woman...<<

So in your lexicon, what word would you apply to the ceremony undertaken by two divorced people?

Here's a hint: most people describe it as a marriage ceremony. Following which, they are described as being married.

How also would you describe the status of two married people, one of whom has been unfaithful to the other? Or indeed, in which each has had an extra-marital dalliance?

Here's a second hint: most people would describe their status - for the time being at least - as "married". Possibly even "married, with children".

On these two instances alone, your personal definition fails the test of being exposed to the real world, as opposed to existing only in some fantasy nirvana of your romantic imagination. Marriage does not, I'm afraid, come with a guarantee of lifelong exclusivity.

The corollary of this is clear. Either you insist that divorced and unfaithful folk should be re-categorized by government decree (possibly also with the label "Failure" tattooed on their forehead? just a thought...), then you need to come to terms with the idea that the word "marriage" is far more flexible and adaptable than you would have us believe.

Oh please Valerie, surely your not so deceived that you now say gay marriage is about the children. How twisted and warped can one's view be that a child is better off being denied a father or a mother. Valerie wants decade long trial to validate her postions. Just open your eyes to tribal living where kids rarely grow up with their natural mum and dad together. The results are clear for anyone not wanting their social engeering hobbies exposed. When are the homosexual lobby ever going to honest? Never I suppose because the truth is to painfull. Kids come last in their eyes.

I second Chris in pointing the logical error - it is impossible to legalise something that is not illegal!

What the author is probably asking for, is to broaden a government service, but marrying and divorcing people should not be the business of government in the first place and the number of bureaucrats should be be reduced, not increased.

There are already several churches that conduct gay marriages and certainly there are numerous secular celebrants who are not shy of the task, but for the author this is somehow not enough, she wants none other than Big-Nanny (state) to approve of the marriage. What would Freud have to say about this complex?

A lovely compassionate article - thanks Valerie. Probably the most valid point is that it is a better a child have two parents than one, even if they are the same sex. (I'm just helping a single mother at the moment who has had an operation and can't do anything to care for her sons - it's a nightmare). And a public wedding is a public announcement of a couple's love and commitment - let there be more of them!
But if the church feels strongly that a "marriage" is only between a man and a woman then let the marriage of a homosexual couple be called a "civil union" with all the legal rights such as superannualtion etc. (I'm still reluctant to include adoption in those rights but, there again, if the alternative is an orphanage then better a loving homosexual couple.)

Chris C,
You've put it the best way it can be described. It's a misuse of the meaning of the word marriage. By all means if these people want to spend their live like this, let them but we simply can not let the word marriage be used for that co-habitation. Invent a new word but do not use ours.

Whilst I agree with parts of the article I lost interest when I hit the one sided sexist generalisations. I'll provide some alternatives, not to suggest that it's always the woman's fault but a s a counter to Valerie's sexist examples.

"Legalising gay marriage would prevent many fatal mixed-sex marriages in which women married horrid men for the sake of having children" - alternatively it would leave some poor woman in a vile marriage where she had mistakenly married a horrid woman only interested in the marriage for the benefits it brings to her interest in raising her children. It might also save some men who marry expecting companionship and find themselves dominated and controlled by a woman with a massive sense of entitlement (or they could marry another man with those issues).

"It would give more chance to children who now are brought up in single-carer households because women left a horrible mixed marriage or had children without a partner. " - some could start a new horrible same sex marriage bringing all their existing problems with them.

"Now these women can marry another woman and bring up children whom they love, in safety. " - Not sure about alternatives for this, child abuse is not gendered but rather strongly tied to "disadvantage", two active parents are less likely to abuse or neglect kids than someone on their own but the stats don't suggest that another woman will be any safer than a man.

"They would probably be gentle fathers." - as are most fathers.

The article does nothing to add value to the case for same sex marriage, it's based on sexist stereotypes that undermine the case that should be made.

I do think we do great harm when we effectively force people into heterosexual marriages where their orientation does not go that way. Harm to all involved but Valerie's backhanders aimed at men don't address that issue.

R0ber

Thank you, Valerie.

Excellent to read a lateral opinion, and a delight to hear the word ‘horrid’ again.

You raise excellent questions, some of which have already been answered here in Europe and elsewhere.

Your proposed "decade’s trial of same-sex marriage" has been done. There are 37 countries in Western Europe. Of these, 21 have same sex marriages or civil unions already, and another 12 have legislation currently under discussion. The results are that none of the fears of critics of same-sex marriage have been realised.

@Chris C, Yuyutsu and individual: No, it is just not true that “Marriage is the exclusive and life-long union of one man and one woman.”

Different cultures at different points in history have held a range of definitions. Your definition reflects a fairly recent understanding - and quite a good one (which happens to be my personal preference). But we cannot claim it is the only definition or understanding of marriage, can we?

So Pericles is right once again. Grrr …

@progressive pat, re “If gay marriage was sustainable it would've started thousands of years ago.” Yes. It did. Just google gay unions in antiquity, or in the Bible or whatever.

The history of gay unions is a long and impressive one. It seems same-sex marriage of some sort has always been with us, but social acceptance has waxed and waned. We are emerging from a homophobic period of history now.

@runner, regarding children: reputable studies into parenting outcomes confirm that kids with same-sex parents generally do better than kids with opposite-sex parents, both in education and socialisation. This is probably a result of same-sex parents being aware they are in a minority, are pioneers, and hence are under intense scrutiny. So maybe when same-sex parents are accepted as normal and the pressure is off, test results will even out.

But for now, the evidence just does not support your position. It supports Valerie's.

You have probably seen this excellent clip from a government hearing in the US:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3YSfNKSwFk

@runner: "Just open your eyes to tribal living where kids rarely grow up with their natural mum and dad together. The results are clear.."

Quite so; after all, most of them grow up to be black, and we certainly don't want that happening here, do we?

This must be the most original argument against gay marriage yet -- the risk of raising picanninies.

>>Quite so; after all, most of them grow up to be black, and we certainly don't want that happening here, do we?<<

Why you racist bastard Jon :P

Tribalism does not imply high levels of melanism. Almost every culture on earth started out as a tribal society. Despite - or maybe because of - the wicked social engineering of the gay lobby in these primitive societies many of them progressed to the level of civilisation.

>>The results are clear for anyone not wanting their social engeering hobbies exposed.<<

I assume these are the results you are alluding runner: the social engineering by the gay lobby in the Neolithic tribes around the mouth of the River Tiber inevitably led to the founding of the mighty Roman Empire.

You should think yourself lucky runner - the gay lobby back then were a lot more powerful: they even managed to persuade people that it would be a good idea for wolves to raise children - and you complain that it is perverse for two men to raise children! But strangely enough you never complain about the perversity of one man raising children. What's up with that?

The Roman Empire led to the Holy Roman Empire then the Roman Catholic Church then their Protestant offshoots until we end up here and now with whatever weird happy-clappy church you happen to belong to. So next time you're condemning the gay lobby just remember that without the gay lobbyists in the tribes of ancient Italy there would have been no Roman civilisation and that Christianity would never have gained the political clout or the popularity it enjoys today. You would never have even heard of the religion you use to justify your bigotry. Makes you think doesn't it?

Probably not in your case.

Cheers,

Tony

'reputable studies into parenting outcomes confirm that kids with same-sex parents generally do better than kids with opposite-sex parents, '

very reputable I am sure Alan. Reputable studies is often code for dishonest outcomes such as those produced by gw alarmist. Visit any prison in the US and you will find up to 90% of men who were brought up fatherless. No doubt a video could be produced of a successfull single mum. So what!

Alan Austin,
I care not what the ancient meaning of the word marriage was. The current meaning is it is a union of a man and a woman and has been that for some time.

I do not care what homosexuals do and if they want a legal union, so be it, but find another word/s to mean a same sex union.

The only reason they want the word marriage is because it suggests respectability. Respect has to be earned.

We have already allowed them to hyjack the word gay, which properly has a different meaning.

You gotta laugh.....

It's fascinating reading the offended sensibilities of heterosexual opponents of gay marriage......in the end it seems it all boils down to semantics.

"This is "our" word - go and find your own" (lol)

Humans are endlessly fascinating in their ability to hastily confect artificial citadels in which to preserve the status quo.

[Deleted. Abuse.]

Laugh? Sure… Couldn't hurt. But I do have some sympathy for those who think 'their' word is fixed in meaning and subject to hijack.

But… It's so fixed in meaning that it requires a legal definition in Australian statute? Why? And as for the word marriage being subject to 'someone using force to take control of an aircraft or other vehicle' – that makes even less sense.

Where is the Mock Turtle when you're trying to decide whether you say what you mean or mean what you say?

But I remain optimistic – indeed, runner may be on to something – if 90% of incarceration in the US is caused by fatherlessness, then it follows that one father would be good. And that two fathers would be twice as good.

And for the religiously inclined, if we include their Father in heaven that would make three – sort of game, set and match.

I do find some amusement in recalling that all the failed marriages I've ever read about at OLO have been heterosexual.

Pericles,

Marriage is a contract that some people break. That does not change the meaning of the contract when it was agreed.

Alan Austin,

I understand that definitions are different in different places and at different times. The definition I gave is the one in our time and in our society and also implicit in the federal parliament’s constitutional power over marriage. If the gay marriage argument was put as an argument for changing the meaning of a word, we might discuss it, but it is put as some great human rights infringement that some people are not allowed to do what they are in fact allowed to do.

poirot,
Some may be opposed to same sex unions, for whatever reason, but I am not. I am simply opposed to the use of the word marriage to describe same sex unions.

Same sex unions are different and should require a different word/s for that type of union. I do not see any reason why we should alter the meaning of an existing word that now has a definate meaning.

Surely wordsmiths can come up with suitable words, some may even have an historical origin. I am cynical of the reasons for wanting the word marriage and believe it to promote better public image.

Like I said, I am also opposed to the use of the word gay to describe homosexuals, and refuse to use it. Am also appalled at the common use of the US word guys that is in usage today. Such is the influence of the US entertainment industry. Our language is part of our culture and is worth preserving.

Hi again Banjo and Chris C.

I am genuinely interested in how you both - and anyone else - would answer Pericles’ intriguing question about word usage. (Admit I am pondering this for the first time.)

The questions seems to be this: which of the following ten different marital arrangements deserve the appellation ‘marriage’? And why?

What are the key defining factors: respectability, monogamy, permanence, gender, number, other?

Or should all ten be given their own separate individual label?

1. A man and a woman in a sanctioned union which continues monogamous and faithful throughout their lives. By sanctioned I mean officially and legally by the state, church or both. This seems to be Chris C's definition, above.

2. Two men or two women in a sanctioned union which continues monogamous and faithful throughout their lives.

3. A man and a woman in a sanctioned union which continues throughout their lives but where one partner has occasional extra-marital affairs.

4. A man and a woman in a sanctioned union which continues throughout their lives but where both partners have occasional extra-marital affairs.

5. A man and a woman in a sanctioned union which continues throughout their lives but where both partners agree regularly to invite a third person to join them for recreational sex.

6. One man and two women in a sanctioned union which continues as a faithful threesome throughout their lives. Or two men and one woman.

7. A man and a woman in a sanctioned union which continues as a faithful, monogamous union until they divorce.

8. A man and a woman in a sanctioned union but where one or both has already been in an earlier sanctioned faithful union.

9. A man and a woman in a sanctioned union but where one or both has already been in an earlier sanctioned union where one of the partners had been unfaithful.

10. Two men or two women in a sanctioned union but where one or both has already been in an earlier sanctioned union.

Thanks. AA.

Clarity about the problem here leads (I think) to the answer.

The problem is that the term marriage as currently used mixes up the legal contractual aspects with the longstanding traditional/cultural aspects.

When a heterosexual couple marry, they enter into a binding legal contractual relationship that imposes well defined obligations on each party. Similarly, after two years, a de-facto couple is deemed to have entered into a similar contractual relationship, with the same obligations. Clearly, gay couples should be able to enter into like contractual relationships, assuming that they cannot already.

The issue arises with the word "marriage". The fact is that this word carries traditional/cultural connotations that have prevailed for many many years in most cultures. It would seem unlikely that the way that word is seen will change any time soon in most cultures.

Therefore, surely, the best way to deal with this issue is to separate the legal from the cultural, ensure that gay couples have the same rights (and obligations) as heterosexual couples and de facto couples, and take the word "marriage" out of the legislation relating to these unions. Let the culture/tradition issues sort themselves out in time, as they will (or maybe won't).

Seems to me that much of the conflict/emotion about the issue of gay marriage results from insufficient clarity on these aspects.

>>The only reason they want the word marriage is because it suggests respectability. Respect has to be earned.<<

What is disrespectable about homosexual unions that isn't disrespectable about heterosexual unions? Why should heterosexuals entering into a lifelong exclusive union (marriage) be automatically afforded respect while homosexuals entering into a lifelong exclusive union (the union formerly known as marriage) have to fight tooth and claw to earn it? How do you justify your double standards?

>>We have already allowed them to hyjack the word gay, which properly has a different meaning.<<

Yes and no but mostly no. Gay does not 'properly' have a different meaning: there is no Academie Anglais so in English it is usage that determines meaning. But gay and faggot and queer all historically had different meanings and they have all been hijacked - note spelling: if you're going to be a tiresome pedant you should at least pay attention to your spellchecker.

Gay no longer means homosexual BTW. It has been reclaimed like queer: queer originally meant weird, strange, spooky - things along those lines. To see queer used in its earlier historical context have a read of The Call of Cthulhu by H.P. Lovecraft. During the 20th century the word was hijacked by homophobic bigots looking for a pejorative term to abuse homosexuals with. The LGBT community has since reclaimed the word as an umbrella term for LGBTetc.'s. Gay once meant carefree and joyous and was an acceptable name for a woman. During the 20th century the word was hijacked by lazy homosexual men who preferred a monosyllabic word instead of a mouthful like homosexual. Generation Y have since reclaimed to gay to mean - well actually I can't say what they've reclaimed as it or the prudish nanna who apparently moderates this forum will probably delete my post. Faggot was hijacked by homophobes like queer but it hasn't been reclaimed.

Word hijacking happens all the time. Language changes as any schoolboy forced to suffer through Shakespeare must surely acknowledge. There's really nothing you can do stop it.

Cheers,

Tony

Dear Alan,

<<@Chris C, Yuyutsu and individual: No, it is just not true that “Marriage is the exclusive and life-long union of one man and one woman.”>>

Why is my name included? I said nothing about what marriage is or is not!

The Logic of Gay Marriage:

By Lewis Carol

’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

That's 'Carroll', Dan. And let's not forget:

"The Walrus and the Carpenter
Were walking hand in hand..."

We have Obama's NDAA,Preventative detention,Patriot Act,endless illegal wars, Global warming lies,GFC theft with the most base corruption and the hot topic is Gay Marriage?

Just shows how conditioned by the pop media our humanity in the West has become.We make Pavlov's dogs look intelligent.

Stop wriggling, Chris C. It is not a good look.

>>Pericles, Marriage is a contract that some people break. That does not change the meaning of the contract when it was agreed.<<

Let's see how close that is to your original.

>>Marriage is the exclusive and life-long union of one man and one woman...<<

No mention of a contract. And from my limited knowledge of the subject, a "contract" in the sense that most people understand it, is not a prerequisite to marriage.

"contract n. an agreement with specific terms between two or more persons or entities in which there is a promise to do something in return for a valuable benefit known as consideration."

Nope. That doesn't fit, does it. These damn words, they never seem to do what you want, do they.

The only contract that occasionally exists is where one or the other establishes what is commonly called a "pre-nuptial agreement". The interesting aspect of this is that it anticipates the possibility that the "life-long union" might not actually be what is advertised on the packaging.

In which case, can these people be described as married, according to your definition of the word? Or have they, too, "hijacked" it to describe something different entirely?

Awful lot of hijacking going on. Too much, I think, to be a simple conspiracy on the part of homosexual couples, don't you think?

In fact, we might validly add this to your - already splendid - list, Alan Austin.

11. A man and a woman in a sanctioned union, where one party has predetermined the actions that will take place at the termination of said sanctioned union.

Words are funny things, aren't they.

Just think of the thousands of different meanings that the word "god" has to different people. And how many millions have died, solely as the result of their individual interpretation.

Perhaps we should ban words.

The only social reasons they want is the benefits that go with marriage. Union is the right term, not marriage.
What about gay divorce, and gay separation.
You are talking about a whole set of rules that have-not been thought of yet.
Stick to being undercover wooly woofs.

579 You seem to know a lot about nothing, especially when it comes to the love and happieness of two people.
Your leader Julia Gillard will be very pleased with you!!

I find it extraordinary that we're even having to
have this conversation in our society today when
marriage means so many different things people.
Who has the right to tell consenting adults who to love
and who ro marry. It certainly should not be the State,
or for that matter Churches interfering in people's
private matters (who to love, marry, how to vote and so forth).

Why do we as a society allow this nonsense.

Pericles, the bottom line is, the marriage word is taken, find another.

As for cheating on ones marriage, that's another issue and does not mean this man and woman are not married, rather, they have failed to respect their vows that so many don't take seriously, which is a shame

Dear rehctub,

The word "marriage," is not taken. Contrary to what you
and others may believe. It is important to recognise that
there is an immense range in marriage, family, and kinship
patterns, and that each of these patterns may be, at least
in their own context, perfectly viable and above all, that
the marriage and family, like any other social institution,
must inevitably change through time,
in our own society, as in all
others.

You probably view the traditional - pattern of marriage
as self-evidently right and proper
and God-given as well. Much of the
current concern about the fate of modern marriage stems
from this kind of ethnocentrism. If one assumes that there is
only one "right" marriage form, then naturally any change will
be interpreted as heralding the doom of the whole institution.

REHCTUB, sorry mate but marriage = "Close union or relationship" or "State of being married"
Meaning marriage belongs to all, and not just one sector of society.

When people recognize me as the mother of my children....

Why not change the meaning of mother? It would hurt nobody to have more mothers in the world. The symbolism would make all the difference to me. Why do those women think they own the word mother?

Not all women can give birth to children, so it makes no difference if men be called mothers.

But maybe the day people accept men as mothers is the day after men are recognized equally with women as the nurturers of children.

It probably doesn't really matter. I can be a parent, and have nearly the same parental rights as women, but be labelled a lowly father in the mean time.

I am aware that you believe this to be the case, rehctub, but that does not make it true.

>>Pericles, the bottom line is, the marriage word is taken, find another<<

As I suggested earlier, claiming words to be fixed and immovable is both unnecessary and aggressive. I offered the word "god" as absolute and definitive proof of this, given the massive amount of grief, pain and mayhem that has been caused by people who insist on their own "one, true" version.

Envisage the following, and you'll see what I mean. Paddy the Proddy says to Mick the Mick in a Belfast pub, "Mick, the god word is taken, find another."

Any scene that you might imagine that follows this interchange, that does not include physical violence up to and including the separation of a kneecap or two, would be pure fiction.

Try to recognize that words are always going to adapt to changing circumstances. If you haven't yet worked out that today's society has a different view on homosexual marriage than previous generations, then you clearly don't get out much. And the fact that you just happen to disapprove does not give you the right to be the final arbiter on the subject.

Alan Austin,

(1) I’ve been busy of late and this has delayed my return to this thread.

I confess you have got me thinking, but you have not converted me.

I think the simple answer to your question is that marriage is what it is when entered into. So, the first example meets the definition, and some of the others did at the point the man and the woman married. They were marriages when made. That one partner broke the contract can mean that the marriage ends or they may decide to continue. In that respect, it is like other contracts. When broken, the parties to them may end the contract or may find away to recover from the breach. They may even go on to make new contracts.

The second example does not meet the definition because a man cannot marry another man and a woman cannot marry another woman.

(2) If the word “marriage” is changed to mean the union of any two people, it can be changed to mean the union of any three or a one-night stand or a teapot. It’s not that words cannot change their meanings. It’s that I see no justification for removing a meaning from the language. I have seen no reasoning given to deprive the language of a word that means the exclusive and lifelong union of a man and a woman (which, by the way, is a contract and an institution and many other things as well even if not mentioned in my definition). The argument for gay marriage is put as some dreadful discrimination under which some people are supposedly forbidden to do what they are in fact permitted to do and would hate to do – marry – when all they really want is to take the word that describes what they can have but don’t want to describe the other thing that they can also have and do want.

I readily concede that we will end up with gay marriage, but that does not prevent my spending a little bit of time pointing out how illogical the whole argument for it is.

Your brother is your brother, not your sister. He is not any less because he is your brother not your sister. Your sister is your sister, not your brother. She is not any less because she is your sister not your brother.

There are all sorts of relationships in our society. One of them is described by the word marriage. Others are not.