@Jon R: We're 'wasting time' over this precisely because it is a purely symbolic issue. It's a way for our leaders to demonstrate that they can make decisions based on logic, evidence and compassion rather than Bronze Age rules handed down by hypothetical deities. Since there are no valid arguments on the negative side whatsoever, it's not possible for them to hide behind those. Instead they have to nail their colours to the mast, and show exactly what they regard as more important: people or imaginary supernatural beings.

Poirot. I'm done with wasting mine and everyone else's time arguing with people on blogsites about the critical difference between sexual objectification and sexual empowerment. Either people get it or they don't.

>>why are we wasting so much time over this?<<

Who knows? It is a great mystery to me why so many people argue so tenaciously against something which won't affect them in the slightest. I really can't see the sense in wasting so much time and effort opposing such a non-issue. Maybe they just enjoy opposing for the sake of opposing. Whatever it is that is the reason we are wasting so much time over this.

>>Killarney,

I'm having trouble grasping your point.<<

It seems obvious enough to me: if a woman chooses to have sex this is sexual empowerment and it is good. If she chooses to be video-taped while having sex this is sexual objectification and it is bad. This seems to me to be a very simplistic and irrational distinction between sexual empowerment and sexual objectification. Then again 'simple' and 'irrational' are often descriptions that can be applied to your more extreme feminists.

>>Either people get it or they don't.<<

Maybe some people just don't get it because whenever they ask a reasonable question in good faith of the knowledgeable expert on the topic that expert has a tantrum and storms off in a huff instead of taking the small amount of time and effort required to educate the uneducated - all the while bemoaning people's ignorance on the topic at hand. A strange and self-defeating behaviour. I sure hope you don't work as a teacher.

Cheers,

Tony

Jon J, a symbolic change so our leaders can nail their colours to the mast! You have to be joking, cynical more than symbolic. Most of the current crop in Canberra don't actually have any colours, principles, or beliefs except a burning desire to keep their snouts in the trough for as long as possible.

If they want to make homosexual unions legal, then do so, but they will not be, and should not be called marriages.

Maybe it’s time to scrap the idea of marriage altogether in favour of Civil Contracts.

With so much divorce in the country it makes more sense for a legal civil contract to be drawn up stating what the financial and legal responsibilities are in the case of a marriage break down.

A contract that spells out the obligations re:any children from the union and what the division of assets will be.

Julia Gillard stated her belief in civil unions on Questions and Answers the other night. She said she believes more in that, than actual marriage and she has this kind of non-marriage arrangement with her present partner.

The social construct of marriage is the problem, it no longer need apply in modern day Australia. 50% of marriage breaks down, anyway, and a lot of those people don't bother to remarry they just live with another partner.

I should have said "in the case of a relationship breakdown" in the above post, sorry.