Firstly, I'm inclined to agree with Diver Dan and Noelreg. Secondly, it is a real shame that public debate around such a complex issue as redefining the institution of marriage has basically been reduced to 'it is right' and 'it is wrong.'

I have heard little in the way of intelligent argument by either side in the debate. The research being cited by both sides is heavily wieighed down by ideology and therefore spurious. I am reasonably certain that with the lack of deep analysis of the future implications of legislating same sex marriage there will be unforeseen circumstances arise in terms of legal precedence. How can we reasonably judge how dangerous to the social fabric those unforeseen circumstances might be?

It is all very well for us to be told that the current situation is 'inequitable' and therefore 'discriminatory' towards the homosexual population. But do you need to have 'equality' in every sense and context to be treated 'equitably'? I remain to be convinced.

I therefore think it would be best if the bills currently before Parliament(s) are defeated, in the hope that this will necessitate both sides having to adopt more adequate arguments prior to any future public debates.

“I invite those advocating for the change to the Marriage Act to explain to me and the public why they believe it is appropriate that children in our schools should be presented with this material and information.

I issue this challenge not to be provocative, scaremongering, or to suggest that one cannot make a case for teaching this material. I personally do not believe that it should be taught in schools; others would disagree.”

This is the crux of Donnelly’s argument and it has its basis in a narrow religious view of heterosexuality which he spreads to homosexuality.

It wishes to keep any kind of effective sex education away from students. It is the extension of the ‘abstinence’ mantra which has been shown not only that it doesn’t work; it produces the opposite results to that intended. As well as adding to the misery of a confused humanity.

No surprise there, keeping people ignorant about any matter, with importance in the real world, say ‘abstinence’ about driving a car has known consequences.

How can anyone who is opposed to teaching effective sex education and is locked into the 'Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve' mindset even contemplate teaching students about the fluidity of human sexuality.

People are sexual beings, orientation is pre-determined and therefore equality should be common-sense.

There are some Parliamentarians affected by the religious gene on this matter and there are others being bullied by religious thugs into conforming to their antiquated wishes.

Separation of Church and State has surrendered to a soft theocracy in Australia.

Remember this next time you vote.

David

This essay is also essentially related to today's report about Cory Bernadi claiming that such changes will inevitably lead to calls for the legalization of bestiality.
But what is wrong with bestiality?
Better to screw your donkey, dog, turkey, black duck, or hamster than to rape a woman.

If you do a Google on the topic you will find that it has a very interesting multi-cultural history.

I offer an alternative, a new Marital Act, similar to but separate from the Marriage Act. Why? To enable those joined in commitment under this new and separate Act to be able to say "Yes, I'm married". And, isn't this really what it's all about, the ability to say I am, or we are, 'married', or for any children to be able to say, "Yes, my parents are married"? (Perhaps such an Act could also present an acceptable alternative to de facto couples - whose children are currently unable to say their parents are married.)

Why bother? Well, it would appear that some will never be satisfied with a Civil Union, so perhaps we can offer something better.

Universal 'marriage' is not currently attained or attainable in our society, and we may expect this condition to continue, so why propose another marital Act? Answer - for the children. Whether we like it or not, some will always have concerns about the efficacy of same sex couples raising a family, and are not such concerns justifiable? Even some heterosexual couples have exhibited poor judgement, or have embarked on having a family for the wrong reasons, but we cannot expect to be able to legislate in order to minimise such errors.

However, appropriate provisions in a Marital Act may act to alleviate concerns regarding the fitness of same sex couples to raise a family - by requiring appropriate psychological assessment in order to acquire access to adoption, surrogacy, AI, donor or in-vitro services. Why? Well, face it, raising a family is a very great commitment, and not all will be up to it. So, why single out same sex couples for particular attention? Simply, in the interests of the children. Is this a biased view? Yes, but I believe a justifiable one.

Hence, a Marital Act, but with protective provisions in the best interests of the children.

Does our society do enough currently to fully protect the rights of the children? No. Thence, should we now propose to do even less? I think not. Hence, discretion is indeed warranted - IMHO.

I was always very direct with my kid's as far as sexual education went.

I knew that because they went to a private Catholic school, they would never get a 'worldly' view on subjects such as abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality and sex before marriage.,
So I gave them the facts on these issues myself, in a non-judgmental , non-religious way.

They have all grown up with very wide views of our world, and are very accepting of the differences in the people living around them.
The sky never fell in, and they never 'chose' to become gay , despite this 'education', so I wouldn't worry too much about educating children about real life after gay marriage becomes legal....

Jeffg has answered more questions than the just one Greg poses in the article. It answers most of those following:

"Some children have two mummies and they are lucky and some children have two daddies and they are lucky too. Some children have a mummy and a daddy ... See, it isn't that hard is it?"

Yes. Very nicely put, Jeff.

We might then look at countries which have had same-sex marriage for some time, and those which have open education on issues relating to sexual orientation and see how they are faring.

They seem to be doing better than restrictive nations with regard to violence, health profiles, social cohesion and child-rearing outcomes.