You might like to think about the fact that not everyone shares your narrow view on the purpose of marriage. You might like to actually look at the history of marriage which had nothing to do with love. You might like to reflect on the fact that countries as diverse as Catholic Spain and secular Denmark have changed their law in the same way as NZ. The 13 countries to date will shortly be joined by Germany and France.

You might like to check the opinion poll data that shows support for a change in the marriage law to be a majority in all four main political parties.

In short you need to argue more logically than is evident in your desperate defence of the indefensible.

"Obviously, there are other important aspects of marriage, but the link to children is the only logical reason for government to remain involved in the institution. The point is no logical alternative view has been offered, other than to deregulate marriage altogether."

If you truly believed this, Blaise, you would be arguing for the criminalisation of divorce and separation or the antisocial behaviour of 'bad' mothering and fathering.

Is that a logical alternative view?

The first thing that needs to be pointed out is that the author is obviously a member of Opus Dei which is to say that before anyone takes the opinions proffered by such a person they should check out this web-page first: http://www.odan.org/corporal_mortification.htm

Would any sane person send their children to a school run by people who advocate and practice such mortifications?

Meanwhile I quite like the essay on this topic published in the Saturday by Germaine Greer. It is titled Gay or Not Nuptials Are Now Divorced From Sense

So what's next in New Zealand. Sheep? We all know how fond Kiwi's are of sheep.

I suggest that there is support for a referendum on the Subject of Gay Marriage at the next election. Though, it seems strange to me that the Lobby group is against this idea. Why is that?

The Question should be kept a simple as possible.

"Should Australia introduce Gay Marriage?" "Yes" or "No" Tick a box.

With New Zealand now sanctioning gay marriage, and gays in Australia saying it could be a cash bonanza for Australia to follow suit, it would be a good idea to actually get a definition of gay love, to have it aired.

Where is love's place in the equation, when a lesbian who wants to marry another woman feels that she should confiscate, nay, degrade, her own womanhood and take to wearing jackets and trousers, lop off her locks and adopt a "mannish" haircut, and de-emphasisize her breasts?.Aren't these the very considerations that have attracted her to a same sex partner?

Conversely, where's the equality in the "marriage" of two males where one is referred to as a "wife", denied his manhood and perhaps even required to offer anal intercourse in lieu of his inability to offer vaginal sex? (To say nothing of the lethal risks of HIV infection)

Why are homosexuals so openly self-serving, dominatingly demanding in their approaches to same -sex partnerships.? Where's the love in that?

Sexually degrading one's partner's for one's personal pleasure is simply selfishness personified.

I support civil unions for same sex couples, but the word marriage was never accepted as a means for one human being to sexually degrade or suborn another.
What do you think

Congratulations, Sydney! There are many who agree with you. The idea of a man introducing his partner as his 'wife' is ludicrous, laughable. It is almost as silly as a women introducing her partner as her 'husband'!

Humans really are stupid creatures. You can sell them anything. Trying to dress up sexual deviation in robes of pure white is infantile.

Let's call homosexuality what it is: abnormal behaviour and allow civil unions to take place for those who engage in it.

>>What do you think<<

I think you have an unhealthy fascination with other peoples PRIVATE sexual proclivities you weird pervert.

Cheers,

Tony

Hi Blaise,

You realise that "the sun will still rise" is just an expression, right? I mean, you know the NZ MP wasn't literally using the continued presence of the sun as an argument in favour of marriage equality, don't you?

And are you reaaaaally the 'editor of Conjugality'? Because the Conjugality website gives its editor as Michael Kirke.

Most certainly Australians should adopt the NZ short 'i'. The hideous elongated versions they use at present are uniformly hideous.

As for arguments, Blaise, you should look at the submissions supporting gay marriage to the Senate's Legal and Constitutional Committee's inquiries into gay marriage. And you really ought not to leap into print until you have done your homework.

Nor was it an argument for giving women the vote.
New Zealand sadly, has all to often led the way, and we followed.
Unless of course you include sheep, which were introduced into Australia,along with all those "sheepish" Dad and Dave jokes, well before any showed up In N.Z.
Given Tony Abbott has already flagged a conscience vote for his side of politics, somewhere in his first term, rest assured, we will once again, soon follow the liberalising lead of our Kiwi cousins.
Incidentally, why are deceased Kiwis buried at least 8 feet down?
Because deep deep down, they're really nice people.
And, how can you tell if an Aussie "SHEEP" farmer is on the level?
Because he dribbles equally, out both sides of his mouth.
Boom boom.
Rhrosty.

The postmodern, homosexual lobby has a real problem handling a dose of simple logic based on everyday reality.

Well done Blaise there will be a lot of 'tut tutting' in the gay coffee bars today

I wondered about that as well, Timaahy.

>>And are you reaaaaally the 'editor of Conjugality'? Because the Conjugality website gives its editor as Michael Kirke<<

It's there, plain as can be.

"The editor of Conjugality is Michael Kirke, an Irish journalist living in Dublin".

http://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality/about/

One can only speculate why the author of the piece thinks it is ok to pretend to a position they don't hold. Possibly because the arguments are so thin, they need some kind of veneer of authority. For example:

"The current public purpose of marriage lies mainly in encouraging a man and a woman to look after their child when they have one."

Where is this stated in the legislation? The Marriage Act, which is of course what is under discussion here, contains no information on marriage's "public purpose"; it simply establishes its legal scope. Once you remove this pillar of untruth from Mr Joseph's piece, there is nothing of any authority whatsoever to underpin his arguments.

Nothing but bluster.

So do any of those supporting the view that marriage is just about having children and therefore it's important to oppose same sex marriage put the same emphasis on opposing the marriages of heterosexual couples who can't have children without medical intervention (or who run a substantially increased risk of birth defects if they do so)?

Whats your reaction to the human interest stories that pop up from time to time of an elderly couple finding love in the retirement home and marrying? Disgust at the debasement of marriage or a contented sigh for their happyness?

What about friends in their 40's who finally meet someone and want to marry?

Would you see marriage for over 50's who's kids have all reached 18 disolved by the state?

Personally I think most of you are hiding behind children as a pathetic cover for your own issues with same sex relationships. It's not in the least bit honest or decent. Some display a disturbing interest in the physical details of other peoples sex lives and clearly spend far too much time thinking about it.

It's time to accept that marriage as a legal structure has probably never had the widespread idealised value that some want to ascribe to it.

For some it's a fantastic long term life experience, for many others a workable agreement that provides a degree of stability and for others a living hell that leaves them to some degree trapped in close proximity to a psychopath.

Best option.
- Get the government out of the business of registering relationships.

Alternatives - If the government insists in staying in the business then either make it a legally inforcable contract with specific meaning or remove any forms of discrimination in regard to gender or number involved.

R0bert

Cathloic's
Gay marriage, bad
Pedo priest, not....

don't say it's for the kiddies.

I agree with Mr Joseph. Just because NZ has changed their marriage rules doesn't mean Australia should also join the very small percentage of the world's countries which have done the same.

Raising children is a serious responsibility that ideally requires their biological mother and father to be both involved - the way our Creator designed it. Parent separation, divorce or death sometimes upsets this ideal, but we should not legislate to deliberately make it likely (even more than at present)that children will not be related to one or both of their homosexual parents, due to surrogacy or adoption.

No doubt same-sex couples with children would argue that that are doing their best in child-raising, but I would argue that in the longer term the child would be disadvantaged, not only by probably not knowing their biological parents but also by not both having male and female parents while they are growing up.

Two points:
First, I agree the interests of the State are served by providing for the welfare of children. It's therefore relevant that significant numbers of gay couples do have children (23% in one NZ study - Henrickson, 2005). Actually, playing Devil's advocate, I think there is a reasonable case (from the State's point of view) to define a marriage as two or more people who jointly have the care of one or more children. However, I think even childless marriage is arguably a social good. Marriage is a contract in which the parties undertake to look after each other (in sickness and in health, for richer for poorer), which must reduce the welfare burden of the State and therefore be in the interests of the State. More widely, marriage builds family ties which strengthens bonds further than just between the couple involved.

Second, civil unions, civil partnerships, registered relationships and all their ilk are a horrible kludgy mess. Why encourage every state to define their own unique legal relationships with no consistency or identifiable standard? Don't we want fewer and simpler laws rather than more, and more complex laws? Why define yet another official relationship type that is more-or-less "marriage"? For granting recognition to gay couples, extending access to marriage itself is really the only option that makes practical sense. It's inevitable because it's the only usable solution.

People don't realise that it's actually changing the definition of other people's marriages. So, an average Christian heterosexual 'married' couple out in the suburbs will have the definition of their union changed into something that is not recognised by their God.

The question to be answered by theologians is, will Christian couples be violating Biblical principles if they marry under the new definition?

@pat
That's like saying that, if we changed the law to allow people to keep toucans as pets, people who previously had a pet cat or a dog will suffer because the definition of "pet" has changed. How could they bring themselves to get a pet cat knowing that some kinky people are getting toucans and brazenly calling them "pets"?

I don't get this argument. We never get this fuss when additions are made to the Crimes Act - oh no! the definition of "crime" has changed!

A dimension of this debate that no one seems to want to know about is outlined in 'Earth to David: Sexual Abuse Happens' - see
http://cpds.apana.org.au/Teams/Articles/child_abuse.htm#21_4_13

@CPDS

Could you elaborate? Are you saying that adoption is inherently undesirable? Is there evidence that adopted children are disproportionately abused?

Does anyone think that it would be a good idea for Australia should have a Referendum on the Gay Marriage question in the next election?

EG; Should Australia legalize Gay Marriage? Yes or No. Tick a box.

Could you state your reasons for and against a Referendum please.

I say, yes. Reason. It would settle the question once & for all.

New Zealand? Is that still there? I thought it would have been thoroughly smited by now. Obviously Blaise's God is still playing at hide-and-seek.

Same sex marriage is not a constitutional issue, therefore a referendum does not apply.
There is developing support for same sex marriage by both main parties, even the Liberals have indicated a free vote for their members.

Why do bigots like this try to dress their arguments up as caring for the children instead of admitting they are bigots?

Maybe heterosexuality is abnormal, did anyone ever think about that.

I don't see why straight or gay/lesbian relationships can not be the basis of what are termed as legal, secular "civil unions" while the term "marriage" is left to religious interpretation and certification.

All civil unions should have the same standing. Gay/lesbian couples wishing for the same status as straight couples ought to find this satisfactory, or am I wrong?

Blaise,
Your definition of the true purpose of marriage is fine but the problem is that the welfare state has made that model of family life obsolete.
There is no incentive for families to live as you've described beyond adherence to tradition or belief.
For men in particular under the welfare state there are so many disincentives to taking on a wife and children that it's almost not worth the trouble, who wants to work a 60 hour week for ten years then lose it all and live the rest of your life in poverty because your wife decides she wants someone who'll spend more time with her?
"Gay" marriage cannot exist without a welfare state to pick up the bill and the welfare state came about because of soppy, liberal minded traditionalist "White Knights" and their "fair go for all".
Traditionalists, liberals and social democrats hold the greatest share of responsibility for this outcome, if you didn't want everyone to have a fair go you shouldn't have built the welfare state.

This article accuses gay marriage supporters of ignoring “reason and evidence” but then fails to advance any sound reasons or evidence for its own position except some overly-familiar logical fallacies. First, a blatant appeal to populism (“millions and millions” of Australians oppose gay marriage). Second, a classic example of a circular argument (marriage is about a man and woman raising a child, therefore gays can’t be married). Mix in a couple of straw men (we don’t have to follow New Zealand! Gay marriage is not inevitable!) and we have a good case study in how not to construct an argument.

Same sex marriage being legalized is one thing, but being accepted as normal is an entirely different issue, and one gays who marry just won't be able to accept in my opinion.

I have no doubt they will get their way eventually, simply from the squeaky wheel scenario, but I for one will never accept them as being married, the way I am married to my wife.

In all this debate what no-one from any side has explained is why government should be registering sexual relationships in the first place.

But if sexual relationships are to be placed on a government register and different forms of sexuality have an equal right to "marriage equality" (a fallacy since not even the government claims it's an act of government which constitutes marriage), then why the discrimination against bigamous and polygamous marriages? If it's none of anyone's business whether homosexuals choose to marry, why is it anyone's business if polygamists choose to marry? As I will show, the polygamists have an even stronger case for legalisation, even in the gay lobby's own terms.

Talk of gay marriage being "illegal" is flatly incorrect. Gays have the same rights as everyone else to exchange verbal commitments, solemnise them, have them witnessed, celebrate them however they want. And, in case of a relationship breakdown, no-one has ever been able to explain to me what difference there under the Property Relationships Acts (which in any event is an argument for gay divorce, not gay marriage).

What gays can't do is get the government to register their marriage, and that's all the same-sex marriage debate is about, nothing else.

But bigamous and polygamous marriages are illegal in the true sense of the world. They're against the criminal law. It's not just that you can't *register* a polygamous marriage, which is all that the gays are complaining about. With polygamous marriages, it's the actual exchange of commitments, even if done in private, which is a criminal offence.

Obviously if the gays were really concerned about marriage equality they would be asserting the rights of bigamous marriages to be decriminalized, before spending any time or energy arguing for gays to join in the exclusive and discriminatory club of government-registered marriages, so the whole cause of gay so-called marriage is bullsh!t.

I know many straight couples. Not one amongst them can say, when it was they chose to be straight.
Not one among them could choose to be gay, yet some still believe other straight people can defy all their natural instincts, and chose to live as gays!
Of course no one chooses their sexual bias. We are born with our natural instincts and attractions, carved in stone!
There is simply no element of choice. Certainly, none whatsoever for straights. And given all the crap they have to tolerate, no gay would ever chose to be gay.
We need to finally stop discriminating against and effectively punishing a group of people, due to what amounts to an accident of birth.
I also know of a number of single parents, whose kids are deprived of a second parent and the privileges that flow from a decent income.
Many gay couples are comparatively well off and could do a lot better for some deprived kids, than their alcoholic or drug addicted biological parents.
And the circumstance would differ little if two brothers shared a home and one of the brother's kids, or similarly two sisters, one of them a single mum, the other, a doting aunty. No one sees any problems with those arrangements.
Yet get all hot and bothered, if the same courtesy, were extended to gay couples? Just where is the difference?
It's not like homosexuality is something straights can catch! And it's not like any couple, straight or gay, is performing anything overtly sexual in front of their kids?
It really is time we stopped minding other peoples morals and started minding our own! And discrimination in any form, is thoroughly immoral!
Rhrosty.

Rhrosty,
Right, so you'd be happy with the idea of two wealthy White homosexual men adopting a young Aboriginal boy would you?
Thought not.
You talk about choice yet assume that single parents,addicted or otherwise poor people can't change or mature and that their kids should be given away to "good" people.
We've been down that road and it was a disaster. Shame on you.

Jardine,
Yeah it is stupid, the whole thing is a load of crap,"LGBTIQ" is really just "L", do we really believe that suddenly the "system' is going to start treating men, homosexuals, queers and sexually ambiguous people as equals, it is to laugh.
Gay men are waking up to the fact that to the Feminist run welfare state they are still just disposable men like the rest of us and unless they submit to what women want and "play nice" they are going to be kicked to the kerb.
I highly recommend the works of Jack Donovan on men's issues and as my current favourite Youtube pundit "Stardusk" says, we need to get into the habit of thinking of ourselves as men, not gay men,straight men, black men,White men old men or young men but just men, when that happens we'll be getting somewhere.

There have been a few posts above suggesting that Blaise is not the editor of Conjugality. Not sure why this should be an issue. People have been known to change things in their organisation and not on their website, and if you were really interested in the truth you'd do a bit of research before making the accusation. Which is what I've done.

Seems, after you search Google for "conjugality blaise joseph" that you can easily establish via a Mercator.Net tweet that he became editor on April 3, 2013.

Blaise is an uniformed, indoctrinated religious zealot.

His post proves the point above.

Do I give a hoot about what my neighbours are doing in THEIR bedroom next door, no not at all, none of my business.

Are they raising children, why yes they are. Funny considering both of them are women.

No problems encountred.

Despite all of this physical evidence, the minority religious fervour continues to perpetuate "so called evidence" whereby children raised in same sex unions are at some sort of disadvantage.....sorry all the scientific evidence shows the opposite.

Discrimination is a terrible thing, perhaps those posting should walk the streets, meet the people living this life and realise that it matters little as to what is purported to be 'married' and what really transpires as true love and the care they provide to 'their' children whether by adoption, congenial surrogacy or whatever, get real and learn that you don't own or rule "Marriage", history demonstrates that marriage is a union, whether it is between a man and woman, woman, woman or man, man is irrelevant.

Wake up and smell the roses, most of us have moved on.

Dogma (particularly from the Catholic Church) is now so irrelevant it is beyond a joke.

Show some compassion and give humans a chance, then again, your biase, blinkered view will curtail any opportunity for this to happen.
Happily married man with two beautiful children (undoctinated or course)....Geoff

What next ? Same sex marriage for asexuals !

Well said, Geoff of Perth.
Same sex marriage will eventually be legal here, regardless of any silly religious arguments.

Will it's introduction change anything?
Not really...it is just another nail in religion's coffin.

I dunno, Geoff of Perth. I think you do care about what your neighbours do. If you had kids and there was a sexual predator that sat in their living room window watching your kids waiting for the opportunity to snatch them you should be worried. If there was a violent gang next door that threatened your safety to keep quiet then you would care.

Now we have those in support of gay marriage saying that there is nothing wrong with it. That it can be as healthy as a heterosexual marriage. My concern is where are they getting this evidence from? What studies covering multiple generations are studied? What will be the affects to society as we know it in 100, 200, 500 years?

The greatest evidence that heterosexual relationships work is simply that we are here. IVF and other science based assistance did not exist in the past, so it must be supposed that the gay populations of the past became extinct. Why should I support a movement in society that is self-destructive for society? If the first settlers to Australia were all gay, I can bet that there would not be Australia. To legalise same-gender marriage puts at risk the population of future Australia, which puts at risk the economy. So to say it doesnt matter is a fallacy.

That actually makes it even more interesting, Graham.

>>There have been a few posts above suggesting that Blaise is not the editor of Conjugality. Not sure why this should be an issue... you can easily establish via a Mercator.Net tweet that he became editor on April 3, 2013.<<

I expect that when you find yourself in a situation where you need financial advice, or a lawyer, or even a driving instructor, you tend to examine their background and circumstances before you accept their qualification to give advice, guidance or instruction.

Much the same applies here on OLO. It is useful, sometimes quite important, to know that the views you are reading come from, say, Julie Bishop or John Pilger. At the very least, that knowledge provides valuable context.

In the case of Mr Joseph, the initial thought was "why does he pretend to be something he is not? Why does he find it necessary to big-note himself?" With that background, it is possible to view his contribution as some form of job application, or perhaps a personal positioning statement, rather than the formal policy document that it now clearly is.

However, equally important from the viewpoint of providing context, is that the Conjugality website has as its worldwide editor, a twenty/twentyone-year-old university student, employing the full range of his life experiences in the promulgation of his fiercely-held views on what other people should, or should not, do.

Always good to have that information.

Got this in an email today.

For those who haven't heard, New Zealand just passed both laws - gay marriage and legalized marijuana.
The fact that gay marriage and marijuana were legalized on the same day makes perfect biblical sense because Leviticus 20:13 says,
"If a man lies with another man they should be stoned."
We just hadn't interpreted it correctly before!

Random Guy, you know that that is a load of rubbish, gay people have been born since the year dot to hetrosexual couples, and the world has not stopped going around.

Everyone has a choice whether or not to engage in homosexcual acts.

The same apples to heterosexual acts.

"Marriage equality, marriage for all, equal love"- not arguments but simply meaningless slogans. When proponents are honest and admit that what they are asking for is a radical re-definition of marriage it may be possible to have a genuine discussion.

Gay marriage will never be equal to the marriage I have with my wife, so even if they do get to share the marriage word, it will mean little to me.

Alternatively, they can simply find another word, it really is that simple.

>>Alternatively, they can simply find another word, it really is that simple.<<

I've offered this suggestion before:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14118#244050

How does 'wed' sound to you rechtub? 'Alice and Bonnie are wedded', 'You are invited to the wedding of Allan and Bob' scan pretty well.

Cheers,

Tony

Gays will regret being railroaded into State (and church!) regulation of their affairs.

Already the defacto changes wrought by the Gillard government intervene in gay relationships, removing their previous freedom to choose whatever relationship they preferred (the State now decides their defacto status, not the individuals themselves) and the State also decides how assets are to be divided on separation. Fine one supposes for those with a wealthy lover to pursue, but what about everyone else?

The 'Progressives' always presume to know what is best for gays too. The joke is on the gays, because the 'Progressives', largely feminists have scant regard for the institution now pushed on gays. While it is true that gays could still chose to be married or not, it is a one shape fits all model of relationship that is being forced on them.

How did gays come to need State intervention, regulation and approval of their personal affairs? Better still, how did gays come to need the State interfering to tell them how to divvy things up on moving out? The 'Progressive' lawyers are laughing all the way to the bank.

>>Already the defacto changes wrought by the Gillard government intervene in gay relationships, removing their previous freedom to choose whatever relationship they preferred (the State now decides their defacto status, not the individuals themselves) and the State also decides how assets are to be divided on separation. Fine one supposes for those with a wealthy lover to pursue, but what about everyone else?<<

This all applies equally to straight relationships. I disagree with the way the Government and courts handle defacto relationships too but I'm not sure what it has to do with same-sex marriage?

Cheers,

Tony

@David Morrison ""Marriage equality, marriage for all, equal love"- not arguments but simply meaningless slogans. When proponents are honest and admit that what they are asking for is a radical re-definition of marriage it may be possible to have a genuine discussion."

Genuine discussion is impossible with someone for whom "equality" and "love" are meaningless concepts, David.

....How does 'wed' sound to you rechtub? 'Alice and Bonnie are wedded', 'You are invited to the wedding of Allan and Bob' scan pretty well.

Works for me Tony, all but the word wedding.

Perhaps 'you are invited to the union of...... Would be more appropriate.

Rehctub you and nobody else owns the term Marriage, you and the person you are married to will continue to enjoy life together.
BTW are'nt you anti "Union" also !

Kipp,

It is fair to deduce that Rehctub isn't a mother either. Because society has already specified that one has to be a women to be a mother. That is the pre-requisite, even though many fathers would prefer to have the similar positive stereotyping as mothers and the rights that are accorded to them by family law decisions in particular by virtue of their motherhood.

I guess you will say that Rehctub's 'rights' have been violated as a result. You would say, "What does it matter to others if Rehctub is a mother too?", and "Who does it hurt?".

Just get the 'political 'Progressives' to agree with that ;rights' and 'equality' though. What? You say you don't care either?

'Progressives' are like Humpthy Dumpty, a word means just what they intend it to mean, nothing more and nothing less. That says that 'Progressives' can B.S. that gays 'rights' are 'violated' because the heterosexual marriage law that regulates heterosexual couplings doesn't by definitioin apply to homosexuals.

The Gillard government and the Human Rights commission see no discrimination in the Marriage Act. That is why the 'Progressives' apply their Humpty Dumpty rhetorical trick (a logical fallacy of course) of saying 'rights' instead. What a clever trick! Too easy, next?

What is or who are these "Progressives' you go on about, as this issue is about same sex couples in a committed relationship having the choice that hetrosexual couples have.
Marriage is not compulsory either way, so what ever problem you feel about this issue, be assured nothing in your life will change; when same sex marriage is legal in Australia.

>>Works for me Tony, all but the word wedding.<<

Now you're just being selfish, rechtub. If we must play this silly game of sequestering vocabulary on the basis of sexual orientation then is it too much to ask that you play fair?

You have already staked your claim on the word that is to be the sole preserve of heterosexuals, and that word is 'marry'. We get to keep 'marry' as in 'Alice and Bob are married' or 'You are invited to the marrying of Allan and Bonnie' - but the gays get to keep 'wed'.

Different words, different meanings - 'marry' for sraights, 'wed' for gays. Isn't this what you have been consistently crying out for in these discussions? Two different words, with different meanings? I know 'marrying' is not as easy on the tongue as 'wedding', but isn't a bit of a mouthful to pronounce very occasionally (how often do you go to marryings/weddings, let alone have to say the word) a small price to pay for a clearly delineated vocabulary with no possibility of those filthy poofters stealing your precious words?

But when I make a reasonable suggestion for how this might be achieved you shift the goalposts. Suddenly it's not enough for gays and straights to have different words for their unions - you want to monopolise every word they could use to describe their union, leaving them no words - presumably in the hope that if you remove the language by which we might express such a concept then the concept will die.

How very Orwellian. From the appendix to 1984:

>>The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought — that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc — should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words... This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever.<<

Cheers,

Tony

But when I make a reasonable suggestion for how this might be achieved you shift the goalposts. Suddenly it's not enough for gays and straights to have different words for their unions - you want to monopolise every word they could use to describe their union, leaving them no words - presumably in the hope that if you remove the language by which we might express such a concept then the concept itself will die.

How very Orwellian. From the appendix to 1984:

>>The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought — that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc — should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words... This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever.<<

Cheers,

Tony

>>Too easy, next?<<

Apply the same arguments to gingers:

!!GINGER WARNING: THE FOLLOWING VIDEO FEATURES GINGERS (and some pretty bad spelling). VIEWERS OF A SENSITIVE DISPOSITION SHOULD NOT FOLLOW THIS LINK!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l66gQy3hguc

Gingers are evil. They have no souls. Way back in the beginning of creation, God cursed the gingers for some long-forgotten misdeed. But it must have been pretty serious, because God took away their souls and cursed them forever with red hair and freckles so that decent Christian folk could easily spot the soulless ones that walk amongst us.

Unfortunately many people have forgotten why God made gingers ginger in the first place - so that we could easily shun them. It has got to the point where the Marriage Act allows gingers to marry and perpetuate their cursed line - as long as they're of the opposite sex.

We may not be able to do much about the gingers already here, but we can certainly do something to curb their numbers: all that is required is a simple amendment to the s5(1) of the Marriage Act 1961 so that marriage means the union of a non-ginger man and a non-ginger woman to the exclusion of all others, especially gingers, voluntarily entered into for life.

It wouldn't be discrimination - how can it be discrimination when it's right there in the black and white letter of the law? The Marriage Act wouldn't discriminate against gingers because the non-ginger marriage law that regulates non-ginger couplings couplings doesn't by definition apply to gingers. And it isn't a violation of ginger 'rights'. Gingers have no rights.

Why should we let the Accursed Ones marry but not gays? Some people might say that we should treat everybody equally under the law but these are just the meaningless platitudes of feminist 'Progressives'. Gingers don't deserve to be treated the same way as real people because they aren't real people.

Cheers,

Tony

Jimmy Jones- Thank you for nicely illustrating my point, deliberately misconstruing what I wrote and making no attempt to say how the phrases I quoted have anything to do with same-sex marriage.

The gay issue demonstrates clearly that humans are, generally speaking, amoral and somewhat depraved and their lust tends to pull them in many directions.

The porn industry illustrates my point clearly and any man or woman can see videos of men and women happily fornicating with all manner of objects and other life forms of various sexes and species.

I've even seen a woman licking a donkey's didgeridoo, surely an obscenity but not in the eyes of some people.

Creating a permissive, anything goes society was what undid the Roman Empire.

We can't be too far behind!

Yowza! David G. I think you need to speak for yourself. You seem to be on the forefront of the permissive society. Probably not the right person to be pointing the finger at others.

When it comes to Newspeak. Actually, I'm offended by the Word "Gay" being hijacked by poofters. "Poofter" is a perfectly good word, nothing wrong with it. It says exactly what it means, Homosexual, & it has been used for hundreds of years with impunity.

Gay, however in it's true meaning, means, light heartedly happy. Not a definition I'd give to a homosexual. They are all so miserable, depressed & full of mental hang ups over all sorts of nothings.

Saying "a gay person" is a bit like saying "military intelligence." It's sort of a contradiction in terms.

Bugger it. Let 'em get married, but no kids (ever). They'll breed 'emselves out sooner or later.

Oh no. Poe's Law strikes again.

Cheers,

Tony

I have been sending things to Pollies for years. A proposal by Mr Winsor is almost the same as I sent to him some time back.

From SMH: Mr Windsor said the message he got from Australians was to "let us have our say and get it away from you idiots [politicians]"

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/windsor-calls-for-gay-marriage-referendum-20130428-2imu6.html#ixzz2Rnu7sKQp

Firstly, There will not be a referendum on gay marriage because Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard know that it will pass easily.

Secondly, Tony Abbott will not allow his party to have a conscience vote on gay marriage because he knows a high number of his MPs support gay marriage.

Thirdly, Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard do not support civil unions and would oppose a referendum on the issue to legalise civil unions.

Forth, Many of the same reasons that Tony and Julia give for opposing gay marriage are the same reasons that were used to keep interracial marriage banned.

Federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has rejected senior Liberal Malcolm Turnbull's calls for civil unions to be legislated in Parliament. Read here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-07/abbott-rejects-turnbull27s-call-for-civil-unions/4116304

Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Opposition leader Tony Abbot yesterday said they wouldn't back calls by independent Tony Windsor, the Greens and crossbenchers for a plebiscite on same sex marriage. Read here: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/lifestyle/julia-gillard-and-tony-abbott-reject-calls-for-gay-marriage-vote-before-election/story-e6frf00i-1226631838456

The following website provides lists of MPs who voted in favour of marriage equality, those who voted against, and those who didn’t vote. Read here: http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/wp/how-your-mp-voted-on-marriage-equality/

>>There will not be a referendum on gay marriage because Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard know that it will pass easily.<<

There will not be a referendum on gay marriage because referenda are for constitutional matters. You can only have a plebiscite about gay marriage and as I know plebiscites are non-binding.

Cheers,

Tony

Jason84: Many of the same reasons that Tony and Julia give for opposing gay marriage are the same reasons that were used to keep inter-racial marriage banned.

Someone can correct me on this, but I don't think inter-racial marriages were ever banned in Australia. That was America.

The call for a referendum or Plebiscite, whatever, is set to be hijacked. The question of; Should gay marriage be legalized or do you believe in marriage equality. The Marriage Equality question is fraught with ambiguity. Does it mean, if you tick "yes", then you are in favour of Gay Marriage, or, if you tick "No" then you don't believe Men & Women are equal. It's an old Lawyers trick designed to confuse the issue.

A plebiscite with a direct question. "Should Australia have Gay Marriage." "Yes" or " No" would answer the Question once & for all.

The Gay community have been saying that they have the majority support in Australia for years. Yet, they are against this wording. They want the ambiguous wording. Why? Are they worried that they don't have the numbers after all? Is this why don't they support a clear cut answer to the Question?

'Marriage is not compulsory either way'

Yes it is Kipp. A couple living together for a period of 2 years are effectively married in law by the government.

There exists no avenue to legally live together and not be 'protected' by the government's de-facto laws.

Houellebecq, it is like you wanting to be the "Mother" of your children, it aint the same as the real thing!

If Tony Abbott is elected PM as expected this election, and if he continues as expected to oppose gay marriage or a referendum on the issue, then the pressure to legalise gay marriage is going to keep rising and rising so much so that it will be in the favor of gay marriage supporters. As everyday passes more and more Australians are more solid in there support for gay marriage, and this will continue if Tony Abbott keeps pretending that gay marriage is not an issue by opposing gay marriage or a referendum. Every year more and more countries and states in the USA are legalizing gay marriage, and more and more prominent and influential people are speaking out in support of gay marriage. As long as Tony Abbott is leader of the Liberals there will be no gay marriage or referendums on the issue. And as a result the push for gay marriage will get bigger and bigger and work in gay marriage advocates favour.

@ Jayb

An Australian referendum would give anti-gay stalwarts such as Fred Nile the biggest megaphone they have ever had. This is why anti-equality groups are usually the ones calling for a referendum. Another big problem is confusion about what's being proposed.
If it's a non-binding plebiscite on the Marriage Act then what's the point? Politicians can just ignore it. If it's a fully-fledged referendum on the marriage provision in the constitution, the same question arises. Why bother when the outcome would simply be a clarification of what the constitution means by the term ''marriage'', and a change to the Marriage Act would still have to be voted on in parliament anyway?
The other danger with a fully-fledged referendum is that it would only pass with majority support in a majority of states, effectively putting the threshold for success way above 50 per cent. Overseas referenda on marriage equality have been exploited by cashed-up, anti-gay groups to conduct fear and hate campaigns against gay people.

Below is a quote from British Prime Minister David Cameron:

“So I don’t support gay marriage in spite of being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative.”

Think about it.

Jason84: An Australian referendum would give anti-gay stalwarts such as Fred Nile the biggest megaphone they have ever had. This is why anti-equality groups are usually the ones calling for a referendum.

The Gays have had the floor on this matter for years. They have been shouting out loud & demonstrating everywhere. Are you denying the anti-gay people a say. There are always 2 sides in a debate & it's fair that both sides can air their opinion.

Jason84: Another big problem is confusion about what's being proposed.

I have already covered this.

The call for a referendum or Plebiscite, whatever, is set to be hijacked. The question of; Should gay marriage be legalized or do you believe in marriage equality. The Marriage Equality question is fraught with ambiguity. Does it mean, if you tick "yes", then you are in favour of Gay Marriage, or, if you tick "No" then you don't believe Men & Women are equal. It's an old Lawyers trick designed to confuse the issue.

When David Cameron says he is supporting same-sex marriage because he is a Conservative, he is saying he supports a radical change because he is a Conservative (and I assume for arguments' sake that he actually means he is conservative). Barry O'Farrell tried the same trick of non-speak in NSW.

Next time I hear someone say "I dislike bees because I like honey" I will assume it is someone who thinks like David Cameron or Barry O'Farrell.