That is one fine article and should be read by all. My only slight complaint was about the many benefits of marriage. Could be true but there are other ways of viewing that when there is a very high percentage break down of marriages as no doubt there is with de facto relationships. This is too messy an area and not really pertinent except as a general statistic.

The idea of the bolstering of self-esteem that the availability of marriage to same-sex oriented people brings is the most important part of the same-sex marriage debate. It is often underreported, understated and hidden in rhetoric about procreation etc.

It is so easy to deny equality to others when not affected oneself.

Politicians should see the wrong being perpetrated in the name of religious scaremongering and change the laws immediately.

David

I wonder about the mental health effects on innocent children who now have to deal with adults telling them that they can marry a person of the opposite sex as well as a member of the same sex. They must be bewildered. How can they work out which is right for them?

Once upon a time it was easy. Most kids had a Mum and Dad, one female, one male. Now a small pressure group is trying to suggest that couples of the same sex can be married AND beget children and they are determined to change all the rules in society to suit them!

Spare a thought for children who learn in the first instance by imitation and don't have the intellectual skills or maturity to work out when they are being fed misinformation which could ruin their lives.

You forgot to mention that it should help bring down the cost of AIDS drugs.

You know, economy of scale, the more produced the cheaper each dose gets. The cheaper each dose of AIDS gets too, for the general community too I suppose

...Herein is more obvious diatribe from another neat and tidy homosexual pressure group, sprouting disproportionate noises, and intent on destroying an essential social norm which , as time passes, truth becomes obvious, the small pressure group disagree amongst themselves to the long-term benefits that are prescribed as essential by them, namely, marriage of homosexuals to each other.

...Homosexual marriage makes no sense to intelligent and honest folk, who find this whole gory subject too embarrassing to discuss, and consider themselves as correct to date in making concessions for homosexuals in main stream society, by giving them rights which ARE due to them in areas of employment equality and many other concessions, which flowed automatically from equal opportunity legislation of the recent past.

...What galls most descent folk is calls by organisations such as the AMA which put the medical profession generally, in a position to back-up nonsense being sprouted in this article by a very small group of homosexual activists, representing a minuscule 1% of the medical profession! The AMA should present data for public perusal, if they consider themselves to be expressing a representative view of the medical fraternity they purport to be representing overall!

...This group of overactive homosexuals reminds me of a time not too long ago, of another group who also sprouted nonsense to convince the majority of sensible Australians, that a republic was inevitable. They also proffered faulty data from suspect “polls” as evidence to their holy correctness. We are all very aware of the results of their gross lie!

...I am personally over this “lot” of overactive homosexual misfits, and wish them and their over-represented filth gone

Diver Dan,the republican referendum as you know, did not ask the populace of Australia to answer Yes or No to a Australia becoming a republic. Your hero John Howard just put forward a filibuster question.
Back to the essay, which you disagree with and that is your perogative, you may dislike gay people, though vitrolic comment towards gay people only demeans yourself.

>>I wonder about the mental health effects on innocent children who now have to deal with adults telling them that they can marry a person of the opposite sex as well as a member of the same sex. They must be bewildered. How can they work out which is right for them?<<

How can any of us work who is the right person to marry? I think you've just got to trust your heart on this one. I haven't found the right woman yet but I can't say I'm bewildered or mentally ill as a result.

>>Now a small pressure group is trying to suggest that couples of the same sex can be married AND beget children<<

Fail. A large section of the Australia is saying couples of the same sex should be able to get married. They already have equal rights when it comes to 'begetting' children :-)

>>Spare a thought for children who learn in the first instance by imitation and don't have the intellectual skills or maturity to work out when they are being fed misinformation which could ruin their lives.<<

If children learn their sexuality by imitating their parents then how is it possible that all these straight couples keep on having gay kids? Something else must be happening: the existence of gay children of straight parents proves that sexuality cannot be learnt through imitating parents. Maybe sexuality is just innate like eye colour and left-handedness. Maybe if straight parents can produce gay kids then gay parents can produce straight kids.

Cheers,

Tony

"Maybe if straight parents can produce gay kids then gay parents can produce straight kids."

Tony, how brilliant! So if everyone in society becomes gay their progeny will become straight. Problem solved and we can all live happily ever after.

Take a bow! :)

Diver dan - what makes you think only 1% of doctors support marriage equality? Polls show that two thirds of Australians support this legislation, why should doctors be any different?

David G,

Forgive my boldness even though I recognise the forced flippancy in your remark, but how does “everyone in society become gay” and how would “their progeny become straight”.

This indicates a choice in the matters which only those accept who have not read or do not want to read all the arguments and by those who have not taken the time to interact with gay people. It is in fact an idea steeped in prejudice.

And what is the “problem” that you see but two thirds of the populations do not? Have you some special powers of observation unavailable to most of us?

What in your opinion is the result for young people, especially gay teenagers, of being classed as lesser citizens by being denied the right to marriage?

I’m sure a lot of people watching this thread would like answers based on empirical evidence guided by empathy. If it exists, then don’t keep it to yourself.

Could you include legitimate studies where children suffer psychologically by having gay parents? Your ‘feelings’ on the matter are not that important when we are actually discussing people who are oppressed mainly by religious bigotry.

David

@David G
>> "How can they work out which is right for them?"

Well, most people usually work out who they're attracted to sooner or later. Why, have you still not worked out which sex is right for you yet, David? Well, keep trying!

What I think would be more "confusing" for children, however, is being told that if you aren't attracted to the opposite sex, then you deserve to be treated very differently by the government than your friends when you grow up.

>> "Now a small pressure group is trying to suggest that couples of the same sex can be married AND beget children and they are determined to change all the rules in society to suit them!"

The small pressure group are the ones opposing equality, but anyway...

Apart from the fact gay parents already can and do "beget" (LOL!) children, you are apparently suggesting that thousands and thousands of children in the future should never be born?

Your position is a kind of social eugenics...

For instance, I don't particularly think Catholic families are good environments for children, what with all the lies, the supernatural threats of Hell, the rampant kiddy-fiddling in clergy, etc., but I *certainly* wouldn't ever suggest Catholics should be prevented from marrying so they can't have children!

This is basically what you're suggesting.

>> "Spare a thought for children who learn in the first instance by imitation and don't have the intellectual skills or maturity to work out when they are being fed misinformation which could ruin their lives."

Yes, that's EXACTLY why Catholics shouldn't be allowed to beget children.

I'm glad you agree.

;-)

'As medical doctors, we can confidently state from the scientific literature that this view is incorrect, and in fact the evidence shows that marriage equality will improve public health. '

Yeah yeah and sack and silence any medical people who disagree with your lies.

...I am sincerely sorry Kipp if my opinion and comment offended you personally as a homosexual, (assuming you are one).

...But my opinion and comment is harshened by the crass demands of a very minuscule group of political activists operating in society, who exhibit no appreciation for the concessions already afforded their cause.

...My outspoken opinion on the stupidity that gay marriage is, is not rare and is shared by many good, honest and genuine people who feel they and their moral and social values are being hijacked by a vocal minority of misfits! I hope you are not one of them Kipp!

Dr Amanda Villas:

...Yes, and Amanda, I am sure that if a campaign was initiated which supported the felonious assumption that all in society should be forced to wear two left shoes, a gullible public would soon get on-side with that obvious stupidity too

Diver dan- are you suggesting that two thirds of Australians are just gullible and your vocal minority of people who continue to promote inequality and intolerance should be listened to? I don't know why your vocal minority should have the right to discriminate when a majority of people want what's right-equality for all, regards of sexual orientation.

Amanda, that figure of 60% you keep mentioning is purely wishful thinking.

Let's have a referendum on the gay issue and then we'll see what the Australian people really think.

I suspect it would be closer to 30% or less!

Dear DD,

Our conversation must shift away from the mass,
infantile finger-pointing that now pervades it.
Your tendency to think that your way is the
"right" way and that people who disagree with you
are bad or somehow inferior smacks of prejudice
and narrow-mindedness.

However, you are entitled to your views.
We are all guilty of some measure of bias (the
tendency, often unconscious, to interpret facts
according to our own values). We all view things from
a viewpoint of subjectivity. However, in a democracy -
the majority vote is usually the way issues are resolved.
Therefore as far as same-sex marriage is concerned in
this country of ours - it will be the majority who will
decide when it happens (not if it happens - as the
majority of people are afterall for it). And folks like
you will simply have to learn to live with it.

That's life.

Dear David G.,

Do the Maths. South Australia, Tassie - are all
for same-sex marriage. And that's just the beginning.
I think you'll find that the percentage of people
supporting same-sex marriage is much higher than
the 64% that's being quoted. And by all means lets
have a conscience vote in parliament/and - or a Referendum.
It would be interesting.

"Who exhibit no appreciation for the concessions already afforded their cause"
Diver Dan that is so magnanimous as well as patronising of you, towards members of the Australia community who contribute fully in all aspects of Australian life, even in the defence force.

Refreshing fact-based, reasoned and unafraid to embrace reality uncolored by personal prejudice, hatred, fear, intolerance, ignorance or self-loathing (masquerading under the guise of religious belief or immutability of tradition) - in other words the kind of analysis and decision making expected of any professional and particularly of medical and health professionals.
One can only assume those incapable of exercising scrupulous rigorous reason in argument also manage their practices and patients with similar incomptence.

David G - I didn't pull that figure out of the air, the polls show that the majority of Australians support this reform. See - http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/wp/who-supports-equality/a-majority-of-australians-support-marriage-equality/

Do you have any polls/evidence to back up your opinion that YOU are the majority?

Yes doctor, we know that the gay lobby sponsor groups to conduct polls, most of which are a joke but sadly many Australians have fallen for it. The recent Gallaxy poll asked a question of around 800 people.... MASSIVE opinion poll that one! Then all the gay websites wrote articles on how the majority of Australians want same-sex marriage. Actually the majority of 800 people surveyed by one particular group on behalf of one particular group were in support to be more accurate.

Well here is one for the doctor. The Nine MSN poll of May 2012 asked the simple and clear question "Do you support same sex marriage?" Approx 140,000 responded (Just a little poll that one). Nearly 78,000 people opposed SSM - That's 55% AGAINST!

No doctor, I'm not suggesting that this poll is any more accurate than those organised by the gay lobby. I am simply telling you that polls have swung both ways in this debate, and the reason why I have never heard ONE gay person suggest a referendum is because they know that the majority of Australians would vote against SSM.

Plenty of polls not commissioned by Australian Marriage Equality have shown a majority of Australians support marriage equality. I'm not sure who the 'gay lobby'is.. Which group did you mean? Surely you are not suggesting only gay people are arguing for this important reform?

Lexi:

...Your personality flaw, (which I describe to you as a “Jesus complex”), is a pretty pathetic display of cowardice. You cannot go through life trying to save people from themselves Lexi; obviously you reserve that valuable lesson for a time in the future maybe!

...Now is the time that normal people must rise against the tide of indifference, and slam the lid shut on the morally deprecating march of the homosexual lobby. A group of misfits “bent” on destroying a perfectly good and pure concept of Marriage; one remaining in its original form, designed for the “majority” of normal heterosexual people, (mostly OUR young and virile).

...A concept of marriage designed for the “majority” Lexi. That is the majority which matters; not your sad concept of “imagined” majority: That “other” vaporous majority who you proffer as proof, for a non-existent consensus of captured opinion!

@ doc A, I notice you didn't comment on the poll I provided in answer to your comments. Although I can see why you wouldn't want to comment on a poll of 140,000 people which revealed 55% or 78,000 were AGAINST same-sex marriage (do not believe in mimicking marriage) compared with the 800 questioned in the recent Gallaxy poll.
I don't see SSM as an important reform but rather a selfish misunderstanding of the real meaning of marriage. Many of us can see through the illogical arguments using words like "discrimination", "my rights", "equality" and so forth. They are words of little power in this debate anymore except for those who have refused to accept the answers to them over and over and over again.

>>Although I can see why you wouldn't want to comment on a poll of 140,000 people which revealed 55% or 78,000 were AGAINST same-sex marriage (do not believe in mimicking marriage) compared with the 800 questioned in the recent Gallaxy poll.<<

If it's size that counts I'd refer you to this study of 276,437 people:

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=spla/bill%20marriage/survey.htm

177,663 or 64% of respondents were in favour of changing the law to allow same sex marriage.

Cheers,

Tony

Hey Tony. Thanks for your comment. I am aware of those figures and yes, that particular survey showed a majority in favour. Do you remember when parliamentarians were asked to go to their constituents and see where they stood on this issue? The response was that the great majority did not want to change the definition of marriage. The gay websites made very little comment at the time (naturally) but it did show an interesting result. Also, were you aware of the number of form letters sent in with regard to your link?

My comments were simply in response to one person here who seemed to think that ALL polls showed the majority of Australians are in favour of changing the definition of marriage, when in actual fact the majority of Australians have never been asked! That's why so many are calling for a referendum or some alternate way to give everyone an opportunity to have their vote on the issue. As I said previously, polls have shown support both ways. I mix with a large number of people and I am yet to meet anyone who has been asked their view in a phone poll. However, if some form of referendum was given, and the result was overwhelmingly in support of marriage, would those supporting SSM put the matter to rest? Somehow I think not...

>>That's why so many are calling for a referendum or some alternate way to give everyone an opportunity to have their vote on the issue.<<

Referendums are only held for amendments to the constitution. What you're after is a plebiscite. It would be easy to do and not that expensive - just hand out an extra voting slip at the next election. I believe plebiscites are non-binding but it would settle the question once and for all: the Government should then act accordingly.

Cheers,

Tony

To be fair, the most important results are from the senate and house of reps submissions..only people who cared enough about the issue to have a say responded, and the results were in favour of marriage equality. I agree polls can be difficult because only some are asked - so how about we just look at the results of the senate and reps submissions? There is no need for a referendum-we elected mps and senators to given, if we had a referendum on every issue we wouldn't need politicians at all! Actually, that's not a bad idea... ;-)

The point of the article is, however, that marriage equality laws will improve health and three current discrimination harms many Australians. faced with the the scientific evidence, i don't see how any logical thinking Australian can be against marriage equality. Looking forward to the day when logic, reason and humanity win out and we achieve full equality for same sex couples.

@doc - Of course you would choose to support that poll! Are you suggesting that the 78,000 who opposed same sex marriage in the Nine msn poll weren't serious about this issue? I agree with Tony. A plebiscite would show what this nation really wants, and then the Government can act accordingly.

Anyway, how can a decrease in clinical visits equate to better health? That's like saying if I visit the casino less frequently I will become richer.

I'm looking forward to the day when morality, the rights of children, and a society with a conscience will win out, and some will stop trying to hijack a natural institution with an unnatural concept

A study in Massachusetts showed a significant decrease in clinic visits for non-heterosexual men for mental health reasons following the legalisation of same sex marriage.

Perhaps gay men should have to pay extra for health care, as they are knowingly participating in an act that increases the risks of STD's and mental health issues, not to mention the likes of AIDS.

Its called, User pays.

As for gay marriage, I'm over that crap, it's time they moved on and found another word.

rehctub,

“Its called, User pays.“

An interesting concept but why are you limiting this to one area of society? People who drive too fast, fall of a horse, drink alcohol to excess or eat too much meat can end up needing medical assistance more so than others who do not engage in that type of risky lifestyle.

Why are you only obsessed about a sexual behaviour, all of which can be risky by the way.

I really do want to know why.

David

Cedar J you just blew your argument, with your penultimate sentence.
This is not about morals this is about people who you treat as second class Australians.
You are just another self interested bigot.

Dear DD (Diver Dan),

I did say that you're entitled to your
opinion. However, what you're not entitled
to do is impose that blinkered point of view
onto other people.

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
the institution of the modern family stems from
this kind of ethnocentrism.

When you assume that there is only one "right" marriage
form, then naturally any change will by you be interpreted
as heralding the doom of the whole institution.

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 their own
context, perfectly viable; and above all, that marriage
like any other social institution, must inevitably change
through time, in our own society as in all others.

AFA, not at all.

I have always believed that anyone who inflicts self harm should not be entitled to free health,Including medication, beit drugs, alcohol, tabbacco or obesity.

A prime example is when a repeat druggie has up to ten staff working on them in ER, while at the same time someone is seriously I'll, yet can't get help as all staff are tied up with this repeat offender.

Or the grossly over weight person, a victim of their own bad habbits,who on their way home from the doctor, treats themselves to maccers.

Life/accident/trauma insurance has limitations for these and many other forms of self harm, why not the publicly funded health system, because like all other public purses, it' too is over stretched.

rehctub,

You did not answer the questions on the examples I posed (sigh) but let me get this straight. Those who end up with an STD because of hetero or homosexual conduct, a risk with having sex, should be financially penalised for this. Is that what you think?

Have you ever thought this through? I guess not.

David

An excellent opinion piece, Amanda and Danielle, thanks. The facts are clear, if the people in charge, be they politicians, religious leaders, teachers, bosses... discriminate against a minority, then the members of that minority become depressed, fearful and suicidal, while the rest of the population feel justified in also discriminating, and the problem worsens. Then the Diver Dans and rehctubs rejoice because at last there's someone lower in the pecking order than them; so they vent their spleens. They have no interest in the mental health of anyone, being sick themselves, all they want is to kick and stomp on someone to prove they're not the bottom of the heap, except that their words prove they are.

@ybgirp - Interesting viewpoint except for the fact that not everyone believes that this is discrimination. If it is discrimination then my right to marry my dog, my auntie, my sister or my umbrella should not be opposed by any person lest they bring similar discrimination against me.
ps.I don't really love my umbrella..

Dear CedarJ, We're discussing laws dealing with human/human relationships, not human/dog [or any other object] relationships. If I use your reasoning, it wasn't discrimination when the law decreed that homosexual acts were criminal, because if they were allowed, then bestiality should also be permitted.
There are recorded cases of Romans marrying their horse.

Lexi - Oh dear!You write..."and above all, that marriage
like any other social institution, must inevitably change
through time, in our own society as in all others".

Why must the millennia-old concept of marriage change? By your reasoning we could allow EVERY institution to change. After all we want to be on the right side of history don't we?
OK then...from now on an apple will be called an orange, teachers will be called plumbers, your mother will be called 'father' and marriage will be between any two(or more)living creatures that move (as long as they have legs...or is that discrimination?)

@ybgirp - Once upon a time the thought of same-sex couples marrying was considered disgusting and ridiculous, but now there are some who think the concept quite normal. You say that we are only talking about human/human relationships, and most would think that a human/dog relationship is disgusting and ridiculous. However, since the gay marriage debate has become so public there are groups who have come out of the woodwork having heard the gay activist logic, and are expecting their 'rights' will eventually be honoured also. Yes, there really are groups who want to include their dog or family pet in a legally recognised 'marriage'. And one day on The Forum there will be comments accusing others of bigotry, discrimination etc all because the poor people should be allowed to marry their pet if they really love them.woof woof.
I fully understand and appreciate your comments though.

CedarJ,

You must realise or you are too thick to realise that you are displaying overt irrationality. Let me bring you back to reality for the moment. This is a discussion about consensual partnerships and not about mating with a dog or an umbrella which cannot give that.

I believe you are not that interested in the subject matter here and are merely supporting your ignorant prejudice.

May I remind you that we are discussing real human beings who are discriminated against by idiots like you for no reason other than that you have problems with your own sexuality?

Try and educate yourself.

David

David. Answer me this.. are you not the one with an identity problem? Why do you call yourself an atheist on this forum? Are you really that insecure? Or perhaps you are the one confused about your sexuality based upon your comments in this forum.

I didn't call you an idiot or 'thick', they came from your mouth.

If you want a rational discussion then fine, but if this is the level of your debate I haven't got that much time on my hands to try and have a discussion with you David. God bless you!

Cedarj have you spoken to a counsellor about your confusion, in the understanding of sexual orientation.
There has also been a medical study that indicates, people with strong homophobia attitudes, are inclined to have latent homosexual tendencies themselves.

CedarJ,

“God bless you!”

Excuse me but that is stupid. I do not need a mythical creature to ‘bless me’ whatever that means or entails.

You have to stop hiding being its skirts and run your own life and be prepared to look after people who need assistance. Gays are such people. Don’t let the god delusion turn you into an uncaring monster. History shows it can do that.

David

Dear Cedar J.,

You ask why must the "millenia concept of
marriage change?"

Put simply - because it has.

"Everything changes," observed the ancient Greek
philosophers Heraclitus. It was he who pointed out
that a man cannot step twice into the same river -
for he is not quite the same man, nor is it quite the
same river. This principle applies to every phenomenon
known to us, from the dance of sub-atomic particles
to the expansion of the universe, from the growth
and decay of living organisms to the development
of individual personality.

Looking at history you may recall the transformation that
accompanies the shift from traditional, pre-industrial
society to modern, industrialised society.

No society can successful prevent change, not even those that
try to do so. The question of how, why, and in what specific
ways change occurs remains one of the most intriguing and
difficult problems. However pretending that it's not going to
happen - is not a very realistic outlook and as I stated in
my previous post - there already exists an immense range in
marriage, family, and kinship patterns. You can't prevent
change but you can voice your objections to it on this issue
if you feel so strongly. Contacting your Member of Parliament
would be a good place to start.

cont'd ...

Of course you have to realise that you are in
the minority. Most Australians do support
same-sex marriage.

AFA, I am sorry, but I don't understand what questions you are referring to.

You say...You did not answer the questions on the examples I posed (sigh) but let me get this straight. Those who end up with an STD because of hetero or homosexual conduct, a risk with having sex, should be financially penalised for this. Is that what you think?

Well no, but you must agree that we are referring to a very small minority, who, by the very nature of their actions, place themselves, and their partners at what can only be considered as higher risk, therefore if they contract a STD, then one must consider this as self inflicted harm, one that is avoidable, esspecially if they participate in their act without protection, which by the way is readily available.

As for free health, I think I have made my position quite clear, however, like in most situations, there can be exceptions.

rehclub,

Here is the question I asked. “Why are you only obsessed about a (particular type of) sexual behaviour, all of which can be risky by the way?” I have added the bracketed wording for clarification.

There are numerous high risk behaviours and I gave a few examples. A lot of sexual behaviour has the potential to infect a partner and the answer is to be aware of prevention methods. Most people in educated countries are aware and take the proper precautions whether they are heterosexual or homosexual.

If you continue with the ‘minority’ argument line I’m afraid you will lose me. This is about human rights and equality. Minority or majority is a smoke screen.

David

David. I think you're on a wrong course if you choose to use the old 'equality' and 'human rights' line. I'm sure you are aware that even the European Court of Human Rights recently ruled that gay marriage is NOT a human right. Here is a transcript...
“The European Convention on Human Rights does not require member states’ governments to grant same-sex couples access to marriage,” judges in Strasbourg said. “With regard to married couples, the court considers that in view of the social, personal, and legal consequences of marriage, the applicants’ legal situation could not be said to be comparable to that of married couples.”
As for 'equality' this has been a strong weapon used in the argument for SSM. However, a same sex couple can never be the same as a heterosexual couple. A man and woman are completely different and compliment one another in their relationship, which is vastly different to a same gender couple. This is why in a gay relationship there is often a male role and a female role as they try and imitate the marriage gender roles. Nature makes it clear why marriage is designed between a man and a woman. I am not against gays, nor am I homophobic, but I believe in marriage and will continue the fight to protect it.

@kipp. I couldn't stop laughing when I read your comment but later wondered if you were actually being serious? I am very sure of my sexuality! I am also very happily married and love life. I have many friends around the nation and am certainly not in the minority when it comes to the fight to maintain the definition of marriage. When it comes to sexuality I am anything but confused!Thanks though for your caring thoughts but I feel to decline your offer of counselling. Hope you have a nice day :)

@Lexi. Thanks so much for your comments. I hear what you are saying and appreciate the way you made comment in reply to my own. I see change as a wonderful thing, however I don't think that ALL change is to the benefit of society. I remember when here in SA there was a bill before Parliament to allow poker machines in hotels and sporting clubs. Many opposed it and warned of the consequences that would follow. The left said it was progressive and that adults should be allowed to gamble if they wanted. The Bill passed, and here we are several years on with an epidemic problem on our hands and nobody knows how to fix it. I'm not likening that Bill to the SSM Bill, they are different, I'm just saying that personally I don't believe that allowing SSM will progress society in every way, but rather I see many other problems forecast by some, yet easily dismissed by others. Therefore I have taken many steps to voice my opinion, as have most of those around me, and will continue to do so because I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. That said I also respect your right of opinion Lexi.

@David. Thanks for your thoughts on God. Ha! Am I not surprised?
I will certainly discuss them with Him when we next have a chat. :)

CedarJ,

I’m aware of this judgement…on the other side of the planet and it concerned two lesbians wanting to adopt a child from memory. Even Australia is not that backward.

Let’s go closer to home and see what Michael Kirby has to say on the matter. He wishes to marry his long-time partner and states he is treated like a second class citizen because he can’t.

Being treated like a second class citizen is a human rights and equality matter.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/why-im-treated-like-a-secondclass-citizen-justice-michael-kirby-20120503-1y0o3.html

More on Michael Kirby.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Kirby_(judge)

“Kirby has often spoken publicly in support of gay rights.[22] While President of the International Commission of Jurists he encouraged that organisation to give more consideration to human sexuality as an aspect of human rights,[23] and as an Anglican he has expressed disappointment at his church's stance on gay rights.”

And this statement shows why same sex marriage is so important and how religion is the main culprit.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2117920/Gay-marriage-human-right-European-ruling-torpedoes-Coalition-stance.html

“The vitriol seen in statements by many political and religious figures, particularly some senior clerics, in advance of this consultation demonstrates the persistence of deeply worrying prejudice towards gay people.”

And of course, same sex marriage is not a human rights issue in places like Iran where there are no gay people. Not alive anyway. Decisions from judges in a homophobic world are not necessarily reflective of the truth.

Oh, does your god speak English or maybe Hebrew or is it French? Say hello for me. ;)

David

AFA, David, can you please tell me if the level of STD's is higher in gays, as a percentage of participants, than it is in heterosexuals?

I suspect your answer, should you choose to give one,will provide the answer to your question.

I am sorry, but I simply can't accept one man penetrating another's anus as normal.

After all, if you are a believer in god, he would tell you himself that the act of sex is the humans way of multiplying. Don't you agree

Now on the other hand, if you don't believe in god, surely you agree that the act of sex was intended as a way for us to multiply, it's just that many choose not to conceive.

Now as far as supporting gay relationships, even unions, go right ahead, but the term 'married' is simply not available, as it is taken.

We, the vast majority are not standing in your way, we are simply protecting the sacred vows we took and we are not prepared to allow our valued values to be shared by gays,as marriage to most of us is sacred.

I wish you luck in your quest for an alternative word.

I will support it, what ever you come up with, but you simp,y have to accept that the word 'married' is off the market.

I wish you well and look forward to your forthcoming reply.

BTW, if it suits, I will do the research if you like.

>>I am sorry, but I simply can't accept one man penetrating another's anus as normal.

After all, if you are a believer in god, he would tell you himself that the act of sex is the humans way of multiplying. Don't you agree

Now on the other hand, if you don't believe in god, surely you agree that the act of sex was intended as a way for us to multiply, it's just that many choose not to conceive.<<

Notice how he doesn't mention one man penetrating a female's anus? An act of sex which is just as likely to lead to conception as two men having anal sex? And thus his bigotry is revealed: he has no problem with buggery, just with gays.

>>Now as far as supporting gay relationships, even unions, go right ahead, but the term 'married' is simply not available, as it is taken.<<

>>I will support it, what ever you come up with, but you simp,y have to accept that the word 'married' is off the market.<<

How many times is it now that I've explained to you that in our language words cannot be 'taken' or 'off the market'? English doesn't work like that: it never has and unless you can provide some credible evidence to the contrary I see no reason to assume that it will start working like that in the future.

TBC

2012 is the 200th anniversary of Dickens' birth. I encourage you to go to your local library, borrow one of his books and have a read. They are regarded as classics although personally I find them a little dull. But they should demonstrate to you a fact that I would have thought would have been obvious to most people: English changes. The English that Dickens spoke and wrote in is markedly different to the English we use today - and the English we use today will be very different to then language they're using 100 years from now.

Continuing to repeat the silly idea that once words are taken to have one meaning they will have that meaning forever when Blind Freddy can see that's not the case isn't an argument against gay marriage: it just displays a deep-seated ignorance about some very basic facts about our language.

>>we are simply protecting the sacred vows we took and we are not prepared to allow our valued values to be shared by gays,as marriage to most of us is sacred.<<

And it couldn't possibly be sacred to gays could it? Because they're just not like us are they rechtub? I certainly hope they're not like you.

I hate to break it to you but gays have way more commonalities with straight people than they do differences. They do share your valued values: they have the same basic human drives, cognitive abilities and emotions and when they are children - when their primary social development occurs - they are treated just like very other child because their sexuality has not yet manifested itself. Other than which sex they're attracted to there is no meaningful difference between straight and gay people. Except that I've never met a gay person who holds a grudge against straight people just because they're attracted to the opposite sex.

Cheers,

Tony

56 comments on the ins and outs of gay marriage while over in the Middle East Israel is weighing up whether or not to start nuking Iran! A question of priorities, eh?

I reckon nuclear war outweighs the never-ending demands of a tiny group to have their sexual peccadilloes legalized.

You're right David - the Australian government should simply legalise same sex marriage as it is clearly the right thing to do, and all the evidence suggests it will do far more good than any possible harm.

I agree that the debate is a waste of valuable time and resources.

Once same sex marriage is legalised it will become normal, just as interracial marriage has, and the right for women to vote (both argued strongly against in the past by "defenders" of "traditional values") and we can get on with solving the other problems of the world..

So come on Pollies - legalise it already!

AFA, at no time during my participation on OLO, have I mentioned anal sex.

Your words, not mine. It is simply something that does not occupy my time.

I guess my saving grace is that even if you lot do get your way, I, and many others for that matter will simply defy any such law and not recognize your much fought over accomplishment.

Just remember, having a legal right to something and having it publicly accepted are two different things and I would suggest that most politicians don't care so much about your issue, as much as your vote.

Now that should make you lot feel all warm and fuzzy, hey!

rehclub,

Percentages of STDs in hetero or homosexual people do not change eithers sexual orientation. By this ‘logic’, if it were higher in heterosexuals, then you would be advocating that everyone should be homosexual. Or, at least pay more for medical assistance. Naturally, your religious fellows would reject this idea totally. And you would follow them.

One thing I’m pleased about is you coming clean with the origin of your prejudice. It is religion and how religion has made you so concerned about what goes on between the legs of others. How about this for a novel idea. It is none of your business.

As for DavidG’s comment about nuclear conflict. Two religions – both are right. Most people can concentrate on more than one problem at a time. And religion is the problem in both instances.

Tony Lavis has answered some of your post and I need not reiterate.

You have mentioned anal sex, not me! And now you deny it.

“AFA, at no time during my participation on OLO, have I mentioned anal sex.”

And this below sentence was in the post before that one.

“I am sorry, but I simply can't accept one man penetrating another's anus as normal.”

I am thinking our conversation is not productive.

David

Dear Cedar J.,

The art of reasoned, intelligent argument is a skill
not easily acquired. I'm still learning,
therefore I do appreciate your honesty and tolerance.

Social conflicts do occur between various groups in
our society - be they between political parties, religions,
racial groups, et cetera. Tensions between such interests
as management and workers, teachers and students, the old
and the young, males and females, bureaucrats and the public,
conservatives and others, pro-life and pro-choice, gay advocates,
and so on. All, are an enduring feature of modern social
life. They all generate change when dissatisfied groups
mobilise their resources in order to get what they want.

New social and cultural arrangements emerge out of this
competittion, with the outcome generally favouring
whatever group has the greatest support (power) in the
interaction.

Only time will tell what the final outcome will be regarding
same-sex marriage in this country. From all indications it
does appear that years down the track we may all be wondering
what all this fuss was all about.

See you on another thread.

Take care.

AFA, for the record, I'm am not a follower of god. My wife is, and I respect her for her beliefs, as I do for all followers who keep their views private, or at least accept that we are not interested. First time they ask.

Of course our conversation is at an end, as you simply don't want to go there anymore.

Quite simply, you won't accept the majorities wishes, and that's for marriage to remain a registered union between a man and a woman.

Now I can bet you one thing, that being had you had the word married sewn up, the rest of us would not be causing such a fuss about it, as we would simply find another word.

Just a pity you lot can't accept that, cause quite frankly, I, along with many others are pretty much over the whole debate.

But good luck in your quest, I sill make sure that I don't support you should you be successful. Along with the majority I would assume.

rehclub,

No hard feelings. May I suggest, if you haven’t already any friendships with gay people, that you might like to consider that as a course of action.

Another would be to express your views on the AFA Forums http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/index.php

All you need to do is introduce yourself and then start a thread outlining your thoughts about gay marriage. You will need to be truthful and accurate as the AFA Forums is known for its extensive use of critical thought.

Good luck.

David

AFA, you seem to have formed the opinion that I hate gays. I don't!

I don't approve of what they do, but I don't hate them, nor do I interfere.

My only objection here is that the married word be left alone and that should gays feel the need to be a recognized couple, by all means do so as I will not oppose that, but as I have said repedidly, the married word is taken, so find another and all this fuss and frustration will simply go away.

As for my medical point, again, I don't discriminate against gays, as I am a firm believer that if anyone is being treated for a preventable illness, not an accident, but an illness, then why should the public purse pay for this.

rehclub,

“AFA, you seem to have formed the opinion that I hate gays. I don't!”

I’d rather you didn’t put words in my mouth. It is your dislike of gay sex that has upset your sensibilities. You disguise this with trying to make a case that gays should be in the user pays category and then justify it with obesity etc.

This is so like the Christian rubbish of ‘hate the sin but love the sinner.’ That is nonsense of course with them and with you.

You have the right to be offended but you don’t have any intrinsic right to use that self-inflicted or culturally inspired offence in affecting the lives of others. Learn to live with it.

Don’t look now but you are displaying obvious signs of bigotry. You stand in judgement of what other people can do with their genitalia as though that is all that same sex marriage is about.

To you it is ‘us and them’ and that is the perfect storm for creating a prejudicial method which partly retains the oppression of same sex oriented people.

The word married is not yours to keep and this is just another way to separate heterosexual people from homosexual people, again, in the ‘us and them’ categories.

Thankfully your opinions are in the minority, not that human rights and equality are about opinion.

Just imagine for a moment you were gay, what would you think of the heterosexual you and your ideas? Please answer this.

I really am tiring of your hurt feelings concerning gay sex and the cost of medical assistance.

To me is shows a cultural blindness or some other deeper problem.

David

AFA I have gone over a few of my posts. Now while I said I had not mentioned anal sex, I was not referring to gay relationships among men. After all, what other forms are available.

On second thought, please don't enlighten me.

Now if I miss led you on this, please accept my apologies, as it was nit my intentions.

Now I have done a little research, and it appears that the main risk of anal sex in gay men is the weakening of the passage, something that can cause major problems down the track. Sorry about the pun!

Now your whole argument (with me) is based on your assumption that I hate gays. I don't.

Now, off topic a bit, do you think it is fair enough for a sufferer of emphysema, having heavily smoked all their life, despite being warned time and time again about the serious risks, should be entitled to the same, subsidized medical treatment, given that they having knowingly inflicted self harm.

I don't, and that's my opinion, pretty harsh, I know, but it's how I feel.

It's also the reason why health/life/trauma insurance is much higher for these people, if available at all.

In fact, I recall being asked if I were involved in a same sex relationship when recently changing providers.

Don't you think there's a message in that? Not only gays, but any form of self harm.

Why do private companies place restrictions, while the tax payer has to accept that free treatment for self harm as a given right.?

BTW, I don't think I am in the minority on gay marriage either.

What typically happens in these situations,where there is a strong minded minority group involved, is that while 100% of gays voice their opinions on gay marriage, many non gays simply don't allow the topic to occupy any of their time, hence, the ratio of voters is distorted.

Now you can agree on that, or object, it doesn't worry me either way.

As for me assuming I'm gay, thanks, but I'm simply not interested.

rehclub,

Sorry, but you have failed to answer a very simple hypothetical.

Also failed in not discussing this on another forum where your 'quaint' ideas could be investigated to a greater extent.

That's it for me. You are just not worth interacting with.

You can live in the past and that is your prerogative. Better you than me.

See ya

David

PS Answer the hypothetical about imagining you are gay intelligently and I may reconsider. Emphasis on the *may* as I live a busy life and nonsense is a time waster.

Well, I worked with a gay butcher once, didn't know he was gay at first.

He told me being gay was caused from a hormone imbalance, I suggested this may be able to be reversed, he didn't want to consider the thought.

As for your hypo question, there are some situations I simply won't entertain, being a peoadafile is another, simply won't go there.

You seem to be offended by my opinion on gays, yet I have told you many times I have nothing agains them, I dont except what they do as 'normal', but then that's my choice and it is by no means meant to be offensive.

I hunt animals at times, you may find that disturbing, but again that's your choice.

Marriage is my primary concern here, and there is an alternative, but you lot just won't accept that as you want to intrude into something many of us see as sacred.

I have found our discussion interesting and would be happy to continue, but that's up to you, however, I will not change my position, and you should know that if you do reply.

rehclub,

"As for your hypo question, there are some situations I simply won't entertain, being a peoadafile is another, simply won't go there."

Linking those two very clearly demonstrates your bigoted mindset. Paedophilia is a dysfunction with the perpetrators abusing power. Homosexuality is one of the variations of human sexuality and is consensual.

It might interest you to know that most gay people if not harassed by the likes of your ilk don't want to change any-more than you do. In fact, suggesting someone can change is ridiculous. If you are straight, you could not change it by any known method and neither can gays.

You are a minority and an embarrassing one at that.

Goodbye

David

rehctub you write:...'I don't approve of what they do, but I don't hate them, nor do I interfere. ' I ask you, What do gays do? Do all heterosexuals 'do' the same things? No, and there's just as much variation in what gays 'do'. I've read a paper that reckoned anal sex is more common among heterosexuals than gays, because it's a fail-safe way of not making babies. I hate anal sex, and all the gays I know do too. So where do you get the idea there's some sort of homogeneity? But we've gone off topic. The point is that if a government makes laws that discriminate against a group of citizens, then that is a health risk for those discriminated against. The health risks in this case include: depression and suicide because such a law encourages other citizens such as parents, teachers, religious leaders and other homophobes to abuse them with verbal and physically abuse [gay bashing and murders and other hate crimes...] that cause depression, self-harm and suicide. Because of this, whether or not you think marriage is sacrosanct, surely it is better to remove discriminatory laws. In this case, all we have to do is eliminate the word 'marriage' from the political lexicon, and leave marriage to religions who must be free to marry whoever they please. Every citizen would then be covered by 'civil union' legislation and no one is discriminated against. Clever eh?

ybgirp, yep, you're right.

So, if it works for you, then go ahead, but as I say, being recognized by law is very different to being accepted.

No doubt, if you have your way with marriage, you will then fight for acceptance.

Good luck with that one.

....The point is that if a government makes laws that discriminate against a group of citizens, then that is a health risk for those discriminated against

Well, this case is different as the law was in place prior to the gay marriage debate.

Gays are now challenging that law. Perhaps when the word marriage was first recognized would have been the appropriate time for this challenge.

....Every citizen would then be covered by 'civil union' legislation and no one is discriminated against. Clever eh?

Or, simply find another word for gay unions. Why change our world, when we are quite happy with the way it is.

AFA
For the record, I do not associate gays with peds, it was merely an example.

If it was a poor one, I apologize as no link was intended.

While I may not support gay marriage, I dispose peds, or rock spiders as they are often know as.

However, it's strange that molesting fathers often get swept under the carpet and cause no where near as much fuss.

How can you have a greater breach of trust, than a father praying on his daughter, yet fewer seem to care.

As for wanting to change, I didn't mean that, he suggested it was a hormone imbalance, something I suggested may be curable.

But as I say, it's not a topic that occupies too much of my time, unless marriage is the subject.

rehctub -

Another word cannot be used, otherwise it keeps same sex relationships as separate, not equal.

When women fought for the right to vote, they wanted to vote - and not for it to be known as another word!

It's all just "marriage". There are many different kinds of marriage - interracial marriage, Jewish marriage, Catholic marriage, re-marriage of divorced persons, civil marriage.. why can't there be gay marriage too?

Catholic churches refuse to marry people who have previously been divorced. Any church will be able to refuse to marry same sex couples if they feel that this does not work with their religion.

But two thirds of Australians choose to marry in a civil ceremony, by a celebrant. Why on earth should same sex couples be excluded from this, merely because your vocal minority disagrees with the concept? If your church doesn't like it -they don't have to marry any same sex couple.

>>Why change our world, when we are quite happy with the way it is.<<

How is the definition of marriage being extended to include gay unions going to change your world rechtub? Will it rain blood? Will you have to buy a new dictionary? Will it accelerate global warming? Will Mrs. Rechtub love you any less? Will you love her any less? There must be some perceived negative outcome that you think will befall you if gays are allowed to marry or you wouldn't care so much. So what is it? What do you find so threatening about gay people being allowed to get married?

Cheers,

Tony

Dear Doctor
Nice to see some new blood.

....Another word cannot be used, otherwise it keeps same sex relationships as separate, not equal.

There is nothinHg in my argument about equality, as I have no problems with them getting
Legally hitched, just like my wife and I did 27 years ago.

My point is, and this should answer TL's question as well, when I married my wife, marriage was a very special union between a man and a woman.

We took our vows and, despite hitting a few bumps along the way, pretty normal I believe, we love and respect each other and have raised two children, now adults, who love and respect us just as much as we do them.

At no point, back in 1985, was there any suggestion that gays might be allowed to marry, and marriage was important to us, and certainly not something we thought we would have to share with same sex couples as we chose not to have children who would be born without a family name. No disrespect to anyone who didn't.

Now I accept that due to the squeaky wheel scenario, you are likely to get your wish, but as I have repeatedly stated, being legal and being accepted are two different things.

>>My point is, and this should answer TL's question as well, when I married my wife, marriage was a very special union between a man and a woman.

We took our vows and, despite hitting a few bumps along the way, pretty normal I believe, we love and respect each other and have raised two children, now adults, who love and respect us just as much as we do them.<<

I don't think it will stop being a very special union between men and women if we also allow it to be a very special union between men and men or women and women. I think people will stall fall in love, still get married, still start families. I don't think they'll be in any way put off from it because gays can do it too: people usually do things on the basis of their own utility.

>>At no point, back in 1985, was there any suggestion that gays might be allowed to marry, and marriage was important to us, and certainly not something we thought we would have to share with same sex couples<<

If there had been suggestion that gays be allowed to marry back then would you have not got married? Would marriage have been less important to you and your wife if you had to share it with gay couples?

Cheers,

Tony

TL...If there had been suggestion that gays be allowed to marry back then would you have not got married? Would marriage have been less important to you and your wife if you had to share it with gay couples?

Good point and one i can't answer, but it wasn't.

As for gays sharing marriage, not for me sorry, nor do I support them having children, but that's another issue all together.

Too mixed up for my liking.

rechtub, I don't support anyone having children! Seven thousand million and rising is proving disastrous. But that's beside the point. I want to thank you for your opinions on 'gay' marriage, because it confirms my opinion that most people hold opinions because they want to, not because they have thought about it, in the same way as religious people believe because they want to, despite contrary evidence. Why people want to believe irrational things is another question that's outside the remit if this article I suppose.

ybgirp,

I have to agree that humans hold beliefs because ‘they want to’ and it was a very kind way of putting it. However, why people ‘want to hold beliefs’ that don’t fit within rational evaluation is well within the confines of investigation of the subject matter in this thread.

What is the point of continually giving analgesics to relieve the pain of an illness without investigating the cause of that pain? That would be bad medical practice.

The analogy here is that the pain is the prejudice held by those who do not want to look at the evidence as you have succinctly pointed out. The cause of that ‘illness’ is the elephant in the room that some in society refuse to acknowledge.

The elephant is indoctrination of the young whether that is cultural in nature or worse. Cultural can and does include innate evolutionary propensities which can be altered by the need for cooperation as a species.

The evidence is overwhelming that it can be much worse when the cultural has a religious or other ideological component. The combinations of cultural & ideological or cultural & ideological & religious are capable of producing horrendous results.

The problem is that once the process is set in place it is most difficult to dislodge. The wiring of the brains of children once fused to an adult accepted formula can remain in that state until death.

What I find disturbing is that this is not news. We all know the alleged Jesuit saying of give me a child until he is seven and I’ll give you the man. (or similar versions) Not only do most of us know this, we accept it for its self-evidential truth.

There is no better time in history to take this into account.

David

David, You are so right!
It depresses me that there's currently an investigation and huge advertising campaign in process in an attempt to counter racism - which Australians have always vehemently denied exists in this 'no worries' land. Homophobia is actually worse than racism, because in the majority of instances even the gay kids' parents and siblings hate him for it! When teachers, religious leaders, politicians and relations all condemn someone for the way they were born, then the stresses are horrendous. At least as many, if not more gays are murdered, bashed and suicide every year because of homophobia, than all the attacks of whatever type against people of other races. Yet there's always a cover up. religions are allowed to discriminate, politicians are allowed to discriminate, laws discriminate and it's all done because people have a gut instinct that they don't like the idea.
Your continued support for irrational minority bashing does yopu credit, David

ybgirp,

Thanks for the kind words but there are numerous people who have taken advantage of increasing their critical thinking skills which has enhanced a more rational and empathetic way of viewing the world.

But as you say, as with racism, homophobia still lingers on in parts of government and religious institutions as well as in a substantial minority of the population. It is a very sobering thought that from this latter percentage imaginary seeds of discontent can be sown effectively by those wanting to manipulate the electorate.

That humanity is a slow learner about historical precedents regarding this kind of moulding and manoeuvring people to accept what should be unacceptable demonstrates that dictatorial tyranny is always waiting in the wings.

The oppression of any person or group in society has the potential to end up oppressing us all. This is unlikely in Australia (at present) but nevertheless, the principle is something that we should all take notice of and react against when signs of ‘danger ahead’ appear.

It is inevitable in a non-questioning culturally compliant society that homophobia and racism will be used by the powerful for their own ends.

I could not live with myself if I were on that side of the socio/political/religious spectrum.

David