"The belief that there is only one right way to live,
one right way to regulate religious, political, sexual,
medical affairs, is the root cause of the greatest
threat to man: members of his own species bent on
ensuring his salvation, security and sanity."
(Thomas Szasz).

The re-definition of marriage issue has very little to do with equality, as the past few years have seen all legal discrimination against same-sex couples in Commonwealth law removed. Something that even a few allegedly ‘anti-gay’ organisations such as the Australian Christian Lobby supported as an issue of social justice.

If one then looks past the innacurate mantra of ‘equality’, another agenda emerges. Michaelangelo Signorile (www.signorile.com) is a prominent gay American writer and a national talk radio host (He’s in the 2002 ‘The Gay 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Gay Men and Lesbians, Past and Present). He says: “…offer same-sex marriage for what it is: . . . a chance to wholly transform the definition of family . . . gay leaders must acknowledge that gay marriage is just as radical and transformative as the religious Right contends it is.

Opposition to re-defining marriage is not always about religion. It’s also a social issue about what is best for society as a whole - and the purpose that marriage actually serves. Anthropologists who have written extensively on marriage across many cultures and throughout the ages generally recognize that marriage is a relationship primarily designed to encourage the birth and raising of children. It’s about bringing up the next generation in a way that provides the best outcomes for children AND society, and it has worked for societies since the dawn of recorded history. Marriage is less about 2 (or more – let’s get really ‘equal’ now) individuals in love satisfying their needs, and more about providing stability for children and society once the honeymoon is over.

If the agenda of Signorile and others in the gay community is what is really being aimed for through gay marriage, then those who prefer families just the way they are should be entitled to a little more meaningful debate.

It’s a complex issue, and will there be agreement on both sides? Not likely. Will there be bigots on both sides? Absolutely. But please, can’t the rest of us discuss this in a civil way without hurling insults at each other?

Dear Captain K,

For centuries, the societies of the Western world
have shrouded sexuality in myth, taboo, and ignorance.
Even sociologists, supposedly dedicated to studying
social behaviour regardless of the prejudices and
obstacles in the way, did not accept human sexuality
as a legitimate field of research until after World
War II. Yet the fact remains that there is a great
deal of variation in the sexual practices of
different societies, and much variety, too, within
each society. This obviously has important and
far-reaching implications for personal behaviour
and social life. With the emphasis in our society
of individualism and choice - we should not be
surprised that different patterns of behaviour are
emerging with people wanting social recognition of their
choices and lifestyles. The question of procreation - today
is also a matter of personal choice.

However, as I stated earlier -
each society views its own patterns
of marriage, family, and kinship, as self-evidently
right and proper (and usually as God given as well). Much
of the current concern about the fate of modern marriage
stems from this kind of ethnocentrism. If we assume that
there is only one "right" family form, then naturally
any change will be interpeted as heralding the doom of
the whole institution.

In today's society it is important to recognise, therefore,
that there is an immense range in marriage, family, and
kinship patterns, that each of these patterns may be,
at least in its own context, perfectly viable; and
above all, that marriage, and family, like any other social
institution, must inevitably change through time,
in our society as in all others.

The question regarding same-sex marriage is not
a question of -"If" but - "when."

"Support for re-defining marriage is not always about equality. It’s also a social issue about what is best for society as a whole"

To a degree I think that from a practical sense the use of the term marriage is not a big issue.

My support for same sex "marriage" is mostly driven by the nature of many of those who stand against it. What's best for society is for the say that bigot's have over the rights and freedoms of others to be reduced. Not to say that all those who oppose same sex marriage are bigot's but enough are to raise my concerns and the nature of the opposition to same-sex marriage has made it a touchstone issue.

There are those religious or not who believe that others should conform to their morals even were there are no victims (or no more victims than there are with the cherished and supported institutions). I don't want society to be a place where they hold undue sway over the lives of others.

Given the mess that we heterosexuals have made of the concepts of marriage as a lifetime loving union the claim that same-sex marriage is some kind of threat to a cornerstone of our society has a very hollow ring.

I'd like to see the government out of the business of registering relationships of consenting adult humans, until that happens then whatever name the government uses needs to be available to consenting adult humans wishing to have that relationship registered.

If that raises follow on issues with the law then perhaps it suggest that there are some practical reasons for calling such relationships marriage or perhaps it suggests that the government is too involved in that part of peoples lives.

While the law and practice of marriage does not reflect the idea of a lifetime union with a requirement that children be produced it's a nonsense to focus on the gender issue forsaking all else about marriage that could be important.

R0bert

Hi Lexi - tks for your input.

Pls note that I have never said that there is only one acceptable form of family, or that everyone need conform to my ideals. There is however, enough doubt as to the long term benefits of depriving a child of one or both biological parents that it warrants very careful consideration. And yes, it is understood that single parent families will occur(usually as a result of tragedy), and that many of them do very well for their children - but there's a lot of research to show that ON AVERAGE, the outcomes are less beneficial FOR THE CHILD/REN, than if both biological parents had been around. This is the main point - we should avoid DELIBERATELY placing kids in less than optimal situations if it can be avoided. Redefining marriage is totally avoidable ...

It's a very emotive issue, and it would help all of us if the emotion levels could be dropped a cog or two.

Captain Kuhle,

I'm not sure that the issue of gay marriage and gay parenting is all that related. Gay people have kids, whether they are married or in a civil union. It already happens. So allowing gay people to have their relationships treated equally as heterosexual relationships has absolutely zero effect on whether they can have children. Talking about it just unnecessarily muddies the issue and is really just a ploy used by conservatives to deflect from the fact that they don't actually have a reasonable argument to support their opinion.

However, denying equal access to marriage tells children of gay couples, who are alive in society now, that their parents or family are not equal to others. THis factor CAN do damage to those children.