Ken

Thanks for your thoughtful and interesting article. My I offer a couple of counterviews. Due to the word limit they will be pithy; sorry if they come across as blunt.

First, "bigotted" just means, having irrational opinions about a group of people. As you say, there are no sound reasons - or, at least, no-one has yet adduced any that is not an ex-post justification of an a-priori view - to oppose non-heterosexual marriage.

Therefore "bigotted" is actually an apposite adjective in the context.

I can't help feeling that discussions about LGBTI issues are affected by internalised homophobia, even on the part of some LGBTI people. What I mean is: we; you and I, people of good faith and good will, as well as some LGBTI people, are not angry enough. Would we be calling for pleasant discussion, eschewing strong language, with cups of tea with our little fingers pointed out, if we were talking about rights of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people to marry on the basis that marriage in our society is something that belongs to white tradition?

Just yesterday I was reading an article on a Christian LGBTI site in which a Pastor wrote an open letter to the CEO of Chic-Fil-A, expressig a need to deal with that organisation in Christian love and acceptance, and offering to sit down and have a chat about his gay friends. "Huh", I remarked to some friends, "what if it were about a racist Christian organisation, say a KKK church. Would he be writing so gently and with such an absence of criticism in that circumstance?" And today I saw an article about a Pastor in the US who refused to marry a black couple. Is my point becoming clear?

It seems to me that is the effect of our "cultural meanings" in this context; to blind us, even if only partially, to the dictates of justice.

btw the Marriage Act is not a suitable topic for a referendum or even a plebescite. What is needed is politician backbone.

"Christian, Jewish, atheist, Muslim, Mormon, Scientologist, etc. -- are free to engage in public life on the basis of their faith, with freedom of conscience."

The trouble with legitimising faith-based 'engagement' in public life is that faith-based beliefs have no grounding in fact. Their truth cannot be demonstrated, and the opinions and behaviours which are supposed to follow from them can be shown to be nothing but the results of wishful thinking. What your 'philosopher' is describing here is a playground full of children, all playing their own games of pretend without reference to the people and things around them.

If religious believers could demonstrate the validity of their faiths then they wouldn't be religious. As it is, their claims simply amount to this; "I will believe what I want to, no matter how silly and destructive and hateful it is, and if you try and argue with me that's RUDE!"

I know a man who is demonised and portrayed as a small minded bigot. Thankfully he looks very much like being our next PM to the despair of many OLO contributors. He has kept his marriage vowels and been a good father (horrors!). Thankfully the 'gay' lobby has overplayed its hand especially when the Greens demanded that Pollies check out the views of the electorate. When they heard what they did not want they returned to their demonisation of anyone with any sense of decency in wanting children to not be robbed of a mother and father.

...A declaration of “Finality” as a reason for gay marriage, is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard! Apart from that, the author hits on a few valid and calming points for and against the argument for gay marriage in this article; he actually had me “engaged” until the end!

...I should have known not to let down the guard against the homosexual con-job well underway, co-hosted by the ABC and the Greens; not without a little help from their friends in Labor!

"My chief concern is that when anyone expresses a contrary view, whether it is on religious, or like our PM - sociocultural grounds - they are abused and labelled as homophobic and intolerant."

Labelling anyone who expresses a contrary view as homophobic or intolerant, is the approach that gay activists have been using successfully for many years.

The author bursts into an open door:

<<I believe there is no reasonable legal or ethical basis for a secular pluralistic state like Australia to oppose gay marriage>>

Australia DOES NOT oppose gay marriage. In fact, gay marriage already occurs in Australia as we speak and carries no criminal offense.

All the storm-in-a-tea-cup is about the state of Australia refusing to provide a particular service to particular people - a service it should not have provided in the first place to anyone had there been a true separation of state and church.

Marriage, being a religious sacrament, should remain a matter for churches and the like. The state must stay out and stop conducting mock-sacraments, nor should it register the private religious affairs of its citizens.

It would be helpful, respectful and more credible if you started with a dictionary meaning of homophobia rather than a lazy breakdown of the word. Homophobia has the same meaning as heterosexism and is directly analogous to racism and sexism - none of which are restricted to fear. People in our society grow up in such a strongly heternormative environment with engrained homophobia that they are incapable of seeing discrimination with denial trickling right down to the meaning of words like homophobia.

And you suggest people who are ignorant and in denial of such discrimination should be able to vote in a referendum on my freedom of my biology - the expression of the sexual attraction of my brain, my sexuality. I changed my religion from fundamentalist Christianity to antitheist atheism because I could not change my sexuality and I think my fight for my survival deserves a bit more respect than is shown here. Shouldn't freedom of biology (skin colour, disability, sexual orientation, gender) have precedence over freedom of religion? If religion wasn't so greedy with other people's freedoms we would already have marriage equality.

It is against my conscience not to protest at the injustice of discrimination and stigma that is inherent in a society dominated by religious ideals but then I elicit claims of intolerance and of denying others their rights.
Re: "A vocal group of proponents of gay marriage are deliberately or unwittingly undermining three important freedoms – freedom of religion, freedom of conscience and freedom of speech."
I think you say this simple because it so foreign for you to think that we could stand up and exercise our own freedoms. You are so use to your own freedom you have no compassion for justice for others who are different. My religious beliefs and that of most GLBTI include the moral good of our sexuality. I don't want to have to sit at the back of the bus or wait for another bus just for gays. I want the same freedom of religion, conscience and speech as everyone else. Anything less is homophobic.

A thoughtful and constructive article, BUT, though I can agree with much of its content, I can NOT agree that Gay Marriage is inevitable - simply because I can not agree that gay relationships, as a generality, can or should be deemed to equate to genuine marriage, either on statistical or on sociological grounds.

Firstly, let's leave religious belief out of it, but look rather at the sociological implications. Gays are a small, though vocal, minority, and social constructs and norms should always be based on the general majority common good. Marriage is a construct aimed at long term overall societal stability and security (both personal and economical), with associated laws enacted to protect the rights and well-being of the partners and of any progeny or dependents reliant on that partnership. Just as we, sociologically, outlaw polygamy, polyandry, incest, pedophilia and even the union of first cousins (on medical/genetic-detriment grounds) in the interest of the long-term common good of the society at large, so we must also be hesitant about the ramifications of affording gay unions the same elevated status currently reserved, in the common interest, for genuine heterosexual marriage.

'Marriage' may not now be meeting its inherent intentions or obligations particularly well, but that is representative of a malaise and breakdown in our societal conformity with best interest and best practice, rather than through any deficiency in the concept of marriage itself. To add to current deficiencies by recognising gay unions as being the same as the genuine concept of marriage, could well be akin to deeming 'binge-drinking' to be a national pastime.

Gay unions are statistically unreliable and insecure, as a generality. Is this what we would wish for 'marriage', in a perfect world - and isn't this what we should be aiming for? Should we knowingly reduce overall societal expectations and aspirations to the lowest common denominator? I think not.

Stable heterosexual marriage is the foundation of our society, and it needs to be promoted and supported to higher levels of adoption and success, and Not to be undermined by further pot-holing of its purpose and objectives.

@ yuyutsu: actually, marriage is a legal relationship governed by Federal law.

Here's a thought: people who actually go to church are a minority today. People who think gay marriage is OK are in the majority. Maybe, as people like Jim Wallace keeps telling us, we SHOULD stop pandering to the minority. Let's keep "marriage" for purely civil and secular ceremonies. If the minority of Christians who want relationships to be defined in a particular way as fixed in a particular point in time (before the idea of LGBTI marriage came about, but presumably after women ceased to be chattels, but for some before women got equal pay and other encouragments to work - let's say about 1900 to 1950) want to have binding relationships, then OK, let's let them have a sort of special thing just for them - we could call it a "religious union" - but we ought not let them call their relationships "marriage". We must not let a minority dictate to us what the word "marriage" means.

(tongue in cheeck, of course. Well, mostly).

A solution would be for all legal marriages to be initially conducted as "civil unions".

The term "marriage" be applied to religious ceremonies following the civil union.

Thereby, gay marriage services can be conducted by those religious groups which accept it.

Saltpetre says "Gay unions are statistically unreliable and insecure, please direct us to where these statistics can be found.
I can assure you that there are a great number of same sex relationships, that are enjoying a happy and long term commitment to each other, even many in public life.
As you mention "Insecure" look at the stigma that gay people live with every day, having their being belittled, which explains why the rates of self harm and suicide is six time higher for young gay people.
Your own posting is homophobic, in that you do not consider same sex couples should have the rights that you enjoy, and live their lives only to your considered acceptance.
Love in any form, never harmed anyone.

Danielle,
That would be the logical solution , abolish the marriage act, but this "debate" isn't about marriage equality or any other sort of equality, it's an extension of class war, using the state to enforce bourgeois values upon the working classes, I get the impression most homosexuals couldn't care less.
I've asked the pro homosexual posters this question many times but they usually won't reply, so here goes again.
When do we achieve parity? What's the next big Gay campaign after the official state approved definition of marriage has been re written to your satisfaction?

Dear Wearestardust,

<<@ yuyutsu: actually, marriage is a legal relationship governed by Federal law.>>

Then let them kiss my arse: I have plans to marry sometime in the future and when I do, I am not going to tell those bastards in the government - a religious sacrament and that's it, to which I will invite my friends and family, but not those tyrants from Canberra. I am then going to answer gayly, whenever asked, that I am married - I am going to relate with those I love however I want, and I am going to use that 'M'-word openly before others and before God - I need no permission from anyone, how less so from this stupid and evil government who count for nothing.

Jay-of-Melbourne your questions are essentially silly. You might deduce facts from ill-informed impressions of people you are clueless about but as a gay man I wouldn't pretend to know the future ideas of the communities I belong to despite my 23 years of gay liberation. And I use the word communities purposely because we are multiple communities with just sexuality and persecution as a common core. Gay men include the broadest diversity of heterosexual men as well as what straight men are too chicken to do or admit to. I think many gay men make the mistake that their social circle is The Community. In science and social research we refer to men who have sex with men (MSM) because 'gay' does not included everyone. Relatively few hold what you call bourgeois values. Not many of us are good at arranging flowers. You should know that just as many of the working class are not heterosexual as in other 'classes'.

So I wouldn't dare guess how lesbians, bisexual people, transgender, intersex and other sexually and gender diverse people are going to want to reduce stigma and discrimination against them. But one reliable guess is for everyone else to understand what is the natural diversity of biological sex, gender and sexuality - and the differences between them. We want people to understand marriage equality is far more than same-sex marriage.

We will be near parity when no 12 year old is afraid to express their emotions. Youth suicide will have dropped to near zero by then.

Wait a minute? 12 year olds? Oh dear! nothing to see here, move along, despite it's obsession with youth the sexual Liberation of children isn't on the "Gay" menu is it?
So there's my answer, I guess, the next phase of the Gay struggle is lowering the age of consent to 12.
And youth suicide? how long can you hold that gun to our heads without someone pointing to a causal link between homosexuality and premature death?

Kipp,

You say >"Love ... never harmed anyone"<, but even that's not true - as some suffer being harassed or stalked (or worse) by former partners or would-be lovers - and bad (or spoiled) marriages, relationships and unions harm many. 'Love' is a much ill-used, abused and misconstrued emotion. And, emotion it is, supposedly encompassing genuine bonds of caring, affection and responsibility - but all too often many neglect, misuse or outright abuse the 'responsibility' aspect.

"Love" has also been used as an excuse for 'crimes of passion' and even, in the case of Anders Behring Breivik (in the form of love of country, culture and ethnicity), as an 'excuse' to kill a great many people.

I don't have anything against true love, but I abhor the deceitful way some, or many, pay lip service to this emotion and/or take advantage of the needs of others for 'love' and to be needed and truly valued. Unfortunately our society is far from perfect, and there is a great deal of bad example going on out there which needs to be actively discouraged. I don't see the adoption of 'gay marriage' contributing in any meaningful way to the correction needed to our societal 'malaise', but rather that it can only exacerbate the already unsavoury deterioration evident in this noble and honourable estate.

Gays do deserve to have their rights respected, and much has rightly been done to ensure this with the recognition of 'unions' in law. However, a union does not a marriage make, and does not and can not represent the foundational fabric of ours, or any other, constructive, responsible and accountable society.

I accept that homosexuality, bi-sexuality and transvestism are most often a biological imperative, but I would submit that such represent exceptions to the mass-majority biological model and imperative, and logic would dictate that the exception should not make the rule.

Overall societal stability and harmony relies heavily on genuine 'marriage', and this should be a sufficient imperative to warrant its retention unencumbered by re-scripting for no genuinely worthwhile or constructive purpose.

@Runner "He has kept his marriage vowels and been a good father (horrors!)."

I'd have thought one of the prerequisites for being a "good father" was actually knowing how many children you have!

Remember that time when Tony believed Daniel O'Connor was his bastard lovechild... and then he wasn't?!

3 children? 4 children? More? Who can say? Not Tony!

I dunno, most people I know can actually keep track of their families.

Later! ;-)

I dunno, most people I know can actually keep track of their families.
Jimmy Jones,
How sure are you about your real father ? How sure are you that you don't have other siblings out there ? Your remarks about Tony Abbott are about as pointless & stupid & unfair as they can be.

Language is for ever evolving.

If, or when, gay marriage is accepted, the word "marriage" will eventually undergo a change from its current meaning of a union solely between man and woman.

One wonders of heterosexual people will develop of new word specific to themselves.

Homosex is an abnormal behaviour. It may be indulged in by adolescents who turn to heterosex when they become adults. Sex is there to procreate.So homo sex can be labelled as an abnormal and unnatural behaviour. Such people probably have developed some kind of hatred or incompatibility towards the opposite sex.When the homosexual act itself is considered abnormal by the majority and against nature, there cannot be any talk of marriage of these individuals. These individuals can call their union by some other name and certainly not by the term "Marriage" which is used to denote union between a male and a female.

@individual "Your remarks about Tony Abbott are about as pointless & stupid & unfair as they can be."

I beg to differ; just because the point has sailed over your head doesn't mean there wasn't one!

Tony Abbott - and the Catholic church - are lobbying against gay marriage on the basis that it's immoral. All the little religious sycophants are effusive in their praise of what a moral Catholic family man and (in Runner's words) "good father" Tony is.

On the other hand, they are relentless in hurling invective at homosexual people.

The point of my comment, individual, was to point out the hypocrisy in Runner's wee hagiography of Tony Abbott.

I know how many children I have. Tony's not sure how big his "family" of illigitimate love-spawn is.

And he's got the temerity to judge the value of other people's families as not worth marriage?

Pathetic.

@Ezhil "Homosex is an abnormal behaviour. It may be indulged in by adolescents who turn to heterosex when they become adults"

How do you know? Is that how it happened for you, Ezhil

Ezhil "These individuals can call their union by some other name and certainly not by the term "Marriage" which is used to denote union between a male and a female."

Sorry, "Marriage" is already used to denote the union of a deity to a million Catholic nuns who call themselves Brides of Christ.

"Fathers" in the Catholic church aren't married, nor do they have children, and all the Catholic "Brothers" and "Sisters" aren't related!?

The Catholic church is a sick and unnatural institution which steals terms used to denote normal things.

What do you suggest we do, Ezhil, make the Church illegal?

"Homosex is an abnormal behaviour.
Jimmy Jones,
It is & it also is very common just as many other behaviours.
Gay is a misuse of a word to shroud the degree of abnormality to make it more acceptable in society.

BTW, the Bourgeois, Anglo Saxon values I refer to, "tolerance", "equality" etc are imposed upon us by mainly non homosexual "Gay" advocates to further their agenda, it's like so called "far right" groups supporting Israel and using the star of David as a flag of convenience .
Phillip used the word "Liberation" and described himself as active these past 23 years in the field of sexual Liberation, I know we're not supposed to talk about the Sexual Liberation platform, that we're just supposed to accept it so as not to be called ignorant "bigots" but the real danger to this movement comes when people like me do seek to understand and inform themselves on their goals and motivations.
The next, possibly final legal barrier to be broken down in "Gay Liberation" are age of consent and child protection laws, the theorists of Sexual Liberation (sexual communism) have never shied away from topics such as "Boy Love" and allowing Lesbians to lead the way to acceptance of child/adult sex with "A Woman's Touch".
Here's a 1980 discussion from a mainstream Left wing publication, I used to buy Semiotext from the Brunswick St Bookstore back in my Lefty/student days:
http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/interv_kate_m.htm
Dan Savage is a very mainstream activist from the U.S who has made a living informing High School students on "Gay" issues:
http://www.rpvnetwork.org/profiles/blogs/dan-savage-we-should-acknowledge-the-existence-of-good-pedophiles

...Well Jay of Melbourne, more evidence of the decline of the western world, (your links). Can we now coin a new phrase “Obama-Paed” as we acclimatise to the decaying moral ground all around; and as the pendulum continues to swing towards social acceptance of rampant homosexuality, will that same society come to the point of acknowledgment, in time to save itself, (and extract itself), from the influence and evil intent of the homosexual underclass, and their wayward moral decadence.

Dan,
In this instance I'm not really saying one thing or another about Homosexuals per se but let's just get the whole agenda out in the open, I mean, if you're "coming out", then come right out, don't leave one foot in the closet.
When we talk about the Catholic Church or the pre 1933 NSDAP in this context then we have a look into what sexually "Liberated" institution might look like in reality, that is to say it's very much "do as we say, not as we do.
It's acceptable in such an institution for a bishop to cuddle up to a nice warm catamite of an evening and nobody minds what young Priests get up to as long as they're discrete but these pursuits are for the elite only, not for their subjects.
Hitler tolerated Homosexuality in the SA for as long as it suited his long term plan, true Aryan institutions after all are based on the Mannerbund, male elitism and they incorporate all aspects of masculinity including the homoerotic. The other lesson from that era is that Hitler threw his Gay comrades, the "Brown on the outside, red on the inside SA" under the bus as soon as he was elected and had to compromise with socially conservative parties to get his own way
Sexually liberated institutions and states (remember they're reformers now, not revolutionaries) would be highly stratified with an emphasis on male elites and brotherhoods since neither Judeo Christian "family values" or Judeo/Islamic. Christian "Old Testament" valuse can form the basis of a state.
I may be a pagan "Nazi" but I'm honest about and accepting of the part the Mannerbund, Male elites and homoeroticism play in the formation of a state and that such states have no place for equality nor universal values of any kind.

Don't worry, they will die out.

Well the movement will die out if they keep pushing "equality" and this appalling Gay everyman in their propaganda.
Why would anyone aspire to hang out with Harvey Fierstein, Ellen De Generes or Eric Stonestreet's character "Cam" when they could have Joe D'Allesandro, Beth Ditto or James Dean?

Let us not mix up biology with religion.This is a biological matter.What the church says about homosex or marraiage is not our botheration. Let us not argue for the sake of arguing. We must try to find out the truth and let us find out what is good for the society.No one on earth can deny the fact that homosex is an abnormal behaviour. Marriage was thought of by our ancesters as a way to set the society in order in the sexual context.Sexuality is one area which is plagued by lot of wrong notions and ideas. Let us create a conducive sexual climate, for our progeny, to conduct themselves as responsible citizens so that they can live in a peaceful environment and withot much problems.

"I believe there is no reasonable legal or ethical basis for a secular pluralistic state like Australia to oppose gay marriage."

Legally, for a start, marriage fails to be consummated should same sex partners attempt to enter into a marriage. Sexual coupling by penis in anus or dildo in vagina is dysfunctional by any definition.

A same sex marriage fails ethically, as an outside agent such as a surrogate or sperm donor would be required to make reproduction possible

Dear Raycom,

<<Legally, for a start, marriage fails to be consummated>>

It's the first time I ever hear of the term "consummation" to be mentioned in legislation: could you please point me where it is and how it applies?

Also, perhaps you may know, does the law refer to "sexual coupling" at all?
What then of an elderly couple who no longer has the ability and/or inclination to engage in sex?

In any case, it is wrong for the state and its laws to have anything to do with marriage and/or [consensual-]sex. As I mentioned above, the state of Australia does not currently oppose gay marriage - it merely does not provide that service. Hopefully it will cease providing heterosexual-marriage services as well and leave it as a private matter for individuals, their churches (or other voluntary bodies for those not interested in a religious wedding), families and friends.

Bazz:

<Don't worry, they will die out.>

...No Bazz, they will not unfortunately; heterosexuals keep on breeding more of them: It’s a curse!

Yuyutsu

Grounds for annulment of a marriage include failure to consummate the marriage by heterosexual sexual relations. By definition, sexual coupling by same-sex partners is not heterosexual.

Australian marriage law does not provide for, and consequently rules out, socalled gay marriage. Under Australian law, marriage is between a man and a woman.

It is illogical to argue that socalled gay marriage is equal to heterosexual marriage.

Consummate :
Sexual intercourse, Complete or Fulfil, Complete
Absolutly no mention of only hetrosexual involvement in Consummate.
Raycom, fail must try harder!!

Dear Raycom,

Thank you for the information - I truly wasn't aware that annulment exists in Australian legislation.

Marriage is a sacred religious affair and so the state should keep its filthy hands right out of it.