The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Converted to marriage > Comments

Converted to marriage : Comments

By Brendan O'Reilly, published 8/5/2013

Same sex couples didn't want it then, so why now?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Excellent article. Best argument against same sex marriage I have read.

I particularly liked the points of:

- No love requirement for marriage.

- Everyone has the right to be married if they choose to be.

- There are no known social benefits to having same sex marriage.

Thanks for the article
Posted by RandomGuy, Wednesday, 8 May 2013 9:07:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In this age of failure to commit and high divorce rates, I would have thought that any move which celebrates a long term relationship would be applauded by our society. The gay community wants a stamp of approval and sense of inclusion. We can do that as a society by allowing the choice to marry or not. Here we are again, pipped at the post by our more socially aware cousins across the Tasman. First it was the vote for women, then it was their disability scheme and now gay marriage. We should look and learn and follow suit quickly.
Posted by estelles, Wednesday, 8 May 2013 10:19:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is there an argument here? What we have is a set of prejudices masquerading as analysis. A set of contrived straw man arguments are no substitute for logical analysis.
Posted by Shalmaneser, Wednesday, 8 May 2013 10:45:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let me break down the article by each weak argument:

1. They never wanted it before. Demographics, opinions and policies change over time. That's how civil rights movements work.

2. Lesbian feminists don't want it. And probably still don't, all gay people don't have to get married, it's about having the right to marriage.

3. Marriage used to be about having children. To some people, but to most people, living today, it doesn't. See the thousands of arguments refuting this.

4. Claim that same sex couples do not survive past 65. Weak statistical understanding, many assumptions and ignoring many other variables. Wait, don't married couples last longer than non-married couples? Perhaps it is an argument for same sex marriage.

5. Not as "beneficial" to society. No evidence to support this.

6. Marriage is not about "Love". Completely wrong in our modern society. In my opinion this completely discredits everything you have to say on the subject.

7. Gays can still marry opposite sex. See previous point.

8. Inheritance rights. No real argument here, just that you don't agree that same sex coupes should have these rights. Well they should.

9. Already have nearly the same rights. Would three-fifths of the rights sound about right to you?

10. It's all a ruse to get you approval. I'm quite sure they don't give a $hit about your approval. It is quite simple, they are normal people, who are denied the right to marriage because people like you think that their relationships are not the same. They don't care what you think, just stop working to oppress their rights.

12. Marriage is a religious term. Yep I agree. I am happy for you to take back the term, and keep it. However this would mean completely removing the term from all of our secular government laws. Yes, this means that opposite sex marriages would not be recognized by the government. If fact, I'm happy for individual churches to have the choice exactly who they marry. It will just have no meaning outside of the the church. Think, Aus vs Saudi blasphemy laws.
Posted by Stezza, Wednesday, 8 May 2013 10:51:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What the author should really admit is that marriage itself is largely a dead institution, as the times have most definitely left it far in the past.

The rights he would happily deny to same sex couples are, by his own arguments, not appropriate to married couples in the modern age either. Partners of both genders work, so patronising measures to ensure the little woman left at home is alright once the man dies are not needed.

BUT marriage is sacred so leave the straight couples be, but make sure you permanently consign same sex couples to a different and lesser status. Then everyone can rightfully treat same sex couples as lesser, WITHOUT all the legacy measures of care and mutual support straight people can continue to enjoy. And those silly gay people don't really appreciate marriage anyway, just listen to what they said 50 years ago!

And he didn't even bother to address how often the use of reproductive technologies undermine his garbage about children in same-sex families not being raised by their 'natural' parents. Take all those donor sperm/egg kids away now!

Give me strength. Please come up with something more logical and fair, and then I might listen. THIS is the bottom line. The SECULAR Australian Government recognises loving relationships between two adult people. Discrimination against people on the basis of their sexual orientation alone should be illegal. Replace marriage IN THE LAW with something more appropriate to the modern age, and I'll be right there with you. But this guff? Please.
Posted by Cosmogirl, Wednesday, 8 May 2013 11:03:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why now?
Well now enough of the anti gay discrimination has been exposed as the extreme ignorant cruelty that it is.
And what remains is mostly inside a red-neck minority?
And now, equality in marriage is in real prospect!
As for Lesbians once being strongly against marriage, well that was because it may well have been virtually compulsory, almost always included a man, and gave him virtual lord and master status, rather the the more equitable sharing and caring partnerships, which are today's new norm.
Lesbians are now more in favour, given they would and can marry whoever they love; rather than a male master.
And talking about divorce; perhaps it's a phenomena connected to traditional marriage, which sees two people wake up one morning, laying beside a perfect stranger and someone, one mightn't even like! This is because traditional marriage is all to often based on infatuation lust and baby making, rather than love.
Whereas, people who have had to fight everybody and anybody, just to be together, may well be in truly loving life long relationships.
While it may well make my skin fairly crawl at the sight of two men deep tongue kissing and groping, I would never actively deny them a right to some measure of happiness, natural human warmth and contact!
That is neither my right or my role!
Albeit, I might yell at any couple, hetro or gay, engaged in any similar public display, "get a room!"
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Wednesday, 8 May 2013 12:19:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you Brendan. You have provided a very interesting analysis of this sensitive and polarising social issue. It is, by a very big margin, the most thought provoking article on the imperative for same-sex marriage I have yet come across.
Posted by Ian D, Wednesday, 8 May 2013 12:31:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am in complete favour of same-sex marriage. I am a man married to woman I deeply love, and same-sex marriage will not affect that.

However, it will give to others spousal rights such as inheritance, right to visit spouse in hospital etc. Same sex marriage is a human rights issue.

One problem that we face is the spread of sexually transmitted diseases through promiscuity. Committed relationships lessen promiscuity and the accompanying spread of disease. Same sex marriage is a public health issue.

Another problem is the alienation from society of people who do not have a partner. In their unhappiness rootless men and women are more likely to engage in anti-social activities which can destabilise society. Same sex marriage furthers social stability.

I favour same-sex marriage for the sake of human rights, public health and general happiness.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 8 May 2013 12:45:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just goes to prove the theorem of intolerance:

(presumably)old + men + High Church = Cardinal Pell's representatives = intolerance

Abbott will need to distance himself from the above if he wishes to keep his long coveted PM's job.
Posted by plantagenet, Wednesday, 8 May 2013 1:05:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Might be a good article but there's no use arguing against gay marriage any longer as progressives have won total victory over the religious on the issue.

Family First NZ is set to lose its charity status because of its view on marriage.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1305/S00058/family-first-muzzled-because-of-traditional-marriage-views.htm

Religious people now need to consider if the State sanctioning of marriage is theologically viable in the long run, should it be a private matter conducted exclusively by Churches/ mosques, etc. instead...as a way of maintaining God's grace.
Posted by progressive pat, Wednesday, 8 May 2013 2:14:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you, david f. "In their unhappiness rootless men and women are more likely to engage in anti-social activities which can destabilise society." is likely to be the sentence of the century - unless it was inadvertent due to US/Aussie differences in slang.

What an extraordinarily fickle thing the author's 'conventional marriage' is, dependent as it seems to be on the denominative use of a word.

It's encouraging to see that Brendan is not so married to pursuing his private business interests as to be wedded to thinking, as he says, "Any attempt to appropriate the term "marriage", I believe, would be grossly insensitive…"

[Grossly insensitive, right... wouldn't want to upset the 'prestige and respect' warranted – for example – by the memory of Anna Nicole or should I say, Mrs. J. Howard Marshall.]

"…especially in the context of marriage having religious significance."

If you mean in the sense of "till death us do part", you should be arguing for the criminalisation of separation and divorce.
Posted by WmTrevor, Wednesday, 8 May 2013 2:29:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Overall, what we know about same-sex couples suggests that their relationships are different in nature, much less likely to be lasting, and generally do not give rise to equivalent social benefits, as conventional marriage."

The same is true, of course, of heterosexual marriages between people under 20 or over 65, of heterosexual marriages involving disabled people, and of heterosexual marriages involving the long-term jobless and those who are chronically ill. So when I hear or read of you campaigning vigorously to stop those too, then I'll believe that a genuine concern for society's welfare is your main motivation.

Till then -- it sure smells like bigotry to me.
Posted by Jon J, Wednesday, 8 May 2013 2:56:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stezza
Great analysis. There's nothing left to say, really!
Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 8 May 2013 4:28:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nobody has picked it up but I am sure that with the name " Brendan O'Reilly ", the author has let his Catholic upbringing colour his attitude toward gay marriage.

My apologies if I am wrong.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Wednesday, 8 May 2013 8:14:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Brendan (O’Reilly, the author),

.

I think your article could form the basis of a realistic discussion in order to arrive at a common analysis and agree on a satisfactory solution for everyone.

Perhaps you would accept to remove the power plug from the emotions socket for us to proceed.

Right from the outset, you write:

"The apparent obsession with "equal rights", however, seems to have overtaken both common sense and people's perception of reality".

For many, "equal rights" is "common sense" and "people's perception of reality" is that it is neither fair nor acceptable.

"Decades ago, the gay community quite vocally branded traditional matrimony as some kind of antiquated institution, which they generally wanted no part of".

That is a common human reaction to the unachievable, called "sour grapes" - term coined by La Fontaine in the 17th century. The attitude changes when the "grapes" come within reach.

"... "the institution of marriage is the chief vehicle for the perpetuation of the oppression of women; it is through the role of wife that the subjugation of women is maintained" (Marlene Dixon)".

True - the two world wars were the principal liberators of women who were obliged to replace men in the workplace.

"The social status of married couples over the centuries stemmed from the fact that marriage provided the main umbrella for procreation ... "

It is a common feature in the animal kingdom for males to compete for the right of access to females for mating purposes.

The instauration of marriage civilised this process.

According to historians, monogamy and marriage evolved about 20,000 years ago, well before the advent of the current major religions. It predates recorded history.

I could continue in this vein but I think you get the message.

You make no mention of the deplorable track record of heterosexual marriage and family life, wife and child beating ("until death do us part"), incest, divorce ... compared to same-sex relationships - have you not seen those statistics?

Perhaps an acceptable solution for conservatives would be "marriage" for church-goers and "wedding" for others.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Wednesday, 8 May 2013 10:20:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We gay people want to have exactly the same rights and opportunities as a heterosexual person, and that includes having the right to marry a partner of the same sex. You can throw up as many statistics to argue against gay marriage, but I can also throw up statistics proving the benefits of gay marriage for gay people. That's right, gay marriage is about gay people's right to marry the person they love. Arguing against gay marriage is the same as a gay person arguing against heterosexuals marrying. Queensland had civil unions until the LNP state government banned them. So its interesting hearing and seeing all these people backing civil unions, however these same people never spoke out against QLD banning civil unions. So the people that support civil unions are either lying or using civil unions as a diversional tactic, otherwise they would have banded together to stop the LNP in QLD banning civil unions. Anyway the banning of the QLD civil unions has put more pressure on the federal government to legalize gay marriage. I'm still wondering how my gay marriage will affect your heterosexual marriage?
Posted by jason84, Wednesday, 8 May 2013 11:53:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Same sex marriage: some facts and figures

.

The Netherlands became the first country in the world to legalise same-sex marriage in 2001. Homosexual couples still marry far less often than heterosexual couples.

Just 20 percent of Dutch homosexual couples are married, compared with 80 percent of heterosexual couples, figures by Statistics Netherlands show.

Same-sex marriages represent 2% of all marriages but only 1% of all divorces.

Between 1 April 2001 and 1 January 2011, there were a total of 14,813 same-sex marriages in the Netherlands. The number of marriages between two women (7,522) was slightly higher than those between two men (7,291). In the same period, there were 761,010 marriages.

During that period, there were 1,078 same-sex divorces in the Netherlands, two-thirds of them between women (734), and 323,549 divorces in general.

"The figures show that over the past ten years gay and lesbian couples have been behaving the same way as straight couples", demographer Jan Latten of Statistics Netherlands says.

"Many of them marry out of love, of course. But, just as with straight couples, the desire to have children and the resulting legal responsibilities often weigh even more for gay and lesbian couples.

This could explain why gay couples marry less often than straight ones. Gay couples, especially gay men, still face considerable difficulties when they want to adopt children."

Source: Radio Netherlands World, 22/05/2012

http://www.expatica.com/nl/life-in-netherlands/lifestyle/Same-sex-marriage-some-facts-and-figures_12249.html

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 9 May 2013 12:25:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BP,

>You make no mention of the deplorable track record of heterosexual marriage and family life, wife and child beating ("until death do us part"), incest, divorce ... compared to same-sex relationships - have you not seen those statistics?<

Now, that's just a cheap shot, BP, and you know it. Would you care to provide the relevant statistics, for both sides, and proportionate to the relevant bases of course?

So, you don't think any gays may be capable of pedophilia, or of 'spouse-beating'? And of course there won't be much available regarding 'divorce rates', as yet.
But you may live in hope. A brave new world of marvelously stable, peaceful, loving, long-term gay 'marriages', with nary a nasty word, let alone a divorce on the horizon?
Time will tell, but the statistics for gay relationships are not at all promising - as yet. Of course 'marriage' will improve all that, won't it? Maybe, a very unlikely maybe, in my assessment, but only history will tell.

I honestly don't see what additional benefits gays have actually to gain by so-called 'marriage equality', so it really comes down to attaining the 'respectability' of a 'label'.
So, as it appears that 'civil union' is insufficient to satisfy this 'need', nothing less than taking down the fine notional concept of marriage will suffice? Bravo.

In the wild, I have not heard of any case of two animals of the same sex forming a 'marital' relationship (though a fair amount of same-sex 'play' and experimentation is evident).
But trust our species to go one better.
Having created God, we now advance to creating, or inventing, gay-marriage.
Another amazing 'advancement' in our evolution towards total escape from reality.
Posted by Saltpetre, Thursday, 9 May 2013 1:06:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Saltpetre,

.

Since you want the stats served to you on a platter:

- There were 121 000 marriages but also 50 200 divorces in Australia in 2010.

- Roughly 50% of divorces each year impact on children aged less than 18 years

- 41% of all reported sexual assault victims were aged 0-14 years (Aust. Institute of Health & Welfare, 2009)

- 19% of women and 5.5% of men reported experiencing sexual violence since the age of 15 ( Aust. Bureau of Stats. survey, 2005)

- 25% of women experienced intimate partner physical violence at least once in their lifetime and in the last 12 months, 1995–2006 (UN Stats. Division:
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/Worldswomen/WW2010%20Report_by%20chapter%28pdf%29/violence%20against%20women.pdf)

- Family Violence costs Australia about $8 billion per year, a substantial proportion of which is borne by the victims themselves (Vic. Health, 2004)

According to a survey by The Aust. Institute of Criminology in 2003 :

- 20.8% of all homicides involve intimate partners. This represents approximately 76 homicide incidents within Australia each year.

- Over three-quarters (76.9%) of these intimate partner homicides involved a male offender and a female victim.

- Of these homicides, 65.8% occurred between current spouses or de-facto partners, whilst 22.6% occurred between separated/divorced spouses or de facto partners.

- 10% occurred between current or former boy/girlfriends, and

- 2% occurred within same sex relationships

Even if there were to be just as much intimate partner violence in same sex marriage as there is at present in heterosexual marriage, at least the protagonists would be boxing in the same category !

On the basis of the latest available statistics, same sex relationships only count for 2% of all intimate partner homicides.

Also, about 50% of all heterosexual marriages today, end up in separation or divorce. The children end up living with a single sex parent, generally, the mother.

You add:

" In the wild ... a fair amount of same-sex 'play' and xperimentation is evident".

You are dead right there, Saltpetre :

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 9 May 2013 7:03:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

You wrote: "The children end up living with a single sex parent, generally, the mother."

Very few parents have more than one sex. Ursula le Guin wrote a science fiction novel where people periodically changed sex, but they still were only one sex at a time.

Paramecia may interchange one eighth of their genetic complement during conjugation so they potentially have eight sexes. Wowee!
Posted by david f, Thursday, 9 May 2013 7:50:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Since Australia is **SUPPOSEDLY** a democracy, the will of the majority of citizens should be paramount. Accordingly, the accepted method of determining majority opinion is via a referendum. I suggest therefore that the bloodsucking parasites in Canberra be instructed to add a referendum on homosexual marriage to the one on recognition of local authorities when we turf out the red-headed witch in September. Furthermore, a 'none of the above' option should also be provided on ballot papers so there can be no confusion should the majority be dissatisfied with every candidate. Those who take exception to my use of the word 'instructed' above should read the article 'my will be done' on the Toowoomba branch website of 'Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy'. Note particularly that the cost of an additional referendum will be negligible as we are already required to play the stupid voting game on the date anyway. Mind you it will be a tad less stupid for me at least this time around if Big Clive runs a candidate in my area. The witch & her followers have already been allocated the biggest numbers on my ballot paper, followed by RAbbott & friends.
Posted by praxidice, Thursday, 9 May 2013 8:19:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear praxidice,

Majority rule is only part of democracy. Democracy as it is commonly understood includes the rule of law and the right of all to equal treatment under the law. Free speech and equal treatment under the law are given rights which are not subject to referendum.

No referendum is needed for same sex marriage as it is equal treatment under the law for those who wish to have legal recognition of their status as committed to each other regardless of sex.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 9 May 2013 8:39:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The homosexual marriage issue is clearly extremely contentious & as such cannot be satisfactorily resolved WITHOUT a referendum. Furthermore, one cannot rely on any component of 'the system, PARTICULARLY 'the law', as that little rort is crooked beyond imagination and the exclusive game of utterly avaricious leeches whose only interest is the pursuit of personal riches. There is no lower lifeform on planet earth than a failed lawyer turned bloodsucking parasite politician. Its quite obvious that the pro-homosexual lobby will do or say anything, including courting the support of aforesaid leeches & bloodsucking parasites, to avoid a referendum as they know full well that it would inevitably fail in dramatic fashion. Note that I don't normally have much time for either the Fred Nile CDP or islamic interests but in this case I sincerely hope their common interests prevail. Seems Big Clive is also of like mind so the pressure is mounting.
Posted by praxidice, Thursday, 9 May 2013 8:56:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear praxidice,

Free speech is also contentious, but it is part of democracy. Of course a referendum on the issue might decide that we should no longer have free speech. If we allow free speech then there will be people who say things you or I don't want to hear.

You spoke of a pro-homosexual lobby. Nonsense. There are people who believe that equal rights should not be restricted to those who are heterosexual. If equal rights are extended to homosexuals there will neither be more nor fewer homosexuals. However, those who are predominantly homosexual will be freer to admit their orientation.

You apparently have a great distaste for politicians and the law. I guess you also have a great distaste for democracy. To express that distaste you are apparently willing to favour both Fred Nile and Islamic interests when it when it coincides with your prejudices.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 9 May 2013 9:46:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Democracy is a convenient myth used to appease the sheeple. It was highjacked years ago by bloodsucking parasites & their legal leech comrades, along with concepts like free speech, accountability & equal access to justice. If there was any such thing as democracy, the right of the sheeple to voice their opinion on matters of concern would be regarded as a given, not merely in the few weeks before an election, but every single day. The failure to seek or to respond to public opinion proves`conclusively that the bloodsucking parasites really don't give a rats. There is no excuse whatever for not consulting the sheeple on matters which are quite obviously contentions, eg homosexual marriage & boat people. With a federal election looming on the horizon, there is even more reason why referendum questions should be incorporated. Cost of running a referendum is usually (and conveniently) used as an excuse to not consult the sheeple but clearly that is irrelevant when combined with a federal election. The reason why I'm encouraged to see the CDP & islamic cooperation is that adds a smidgin of balance to an argument hitherto dominated by homosexual lobbyists & bloodsucking parasite politicians grasping for votes. Given the absolute lack of accountability other than (maybe) immediately prior to an election, the time for the sheeple to make their presence felt is NOW.
Posted by praxidice, Thursday, 9 May 2013 10:34:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear praxidice,

.

In Australia, a non-constitutional referendum is usually called a plebiscite.

Also, it is interesting to note that, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the plural of referendum is referendums when only one issue is to be decided. Referenda necessarily connotes a plurality of issues.

In Australia, we usually vote "No" to referendums or plebiscites. Only 8 out of 44 have been carried since 1906.

Perhaps that is why you advocate a referendum.

In France, where I have been living for nearly half a century, the situation is pretty much the same. Voters usually seize on the occasion to say no to the president and/or the government irrespective of what the question may be.

It inevitably ends up as a "no confidence" vote to the politicians even though there may be a majority in favour of whatever is being put to the vote.

Only a small minority of conscientious voters actually vote on the question they are asked to vote on.

Recourse to public opinion polls is probably the only way to find out what people truly think about any particular issue.

In October 2010, a Galaxy Poll found 62% supported same-sex marriage, with 33% opposed and 5% undecided.

In July 2011 a survey by Roy Morgan Research (the only Australian-owned independent polling company) found 68% support same-sex marriage.

In early 2012 the House of Representatives conducted an online survey to provide a simple means for the public to voice their views on same-sex marriage and two bills which sought to legalise it.

There were 276 437 responses, the largest number ever received by a Committee of the House of Representatives.

177 663 respondents (64%) were in favour of changing the law to recognise same-sex marriage, 98 164 (35%) were opposed to it and 610 (1%) were unsure.

However, the report acknowledged that "The online survey was not a statistically valid, random poll. Respondents were self-selected, in that they chose to participate if they wished."

There have been no public opinion polls published since that survey by the Committee of the House of Representatives in 2012.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 9 May 2013 10:28:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear david f,

.

You wrote:

"Very few parents have more than one sex. Ursula le Guin wrote a science fiction novel where people periodically changed sex, but they still were only one sex at a time.

Paramecia may interchange one eighth of their genetic complement during conjugation so they potentially have eight sexes. Wowee!"

.

I understand that earthworms and a few other grubs are simultaneous hermaphrodites, having both male and female sexual organs at the same time (but with a firewall between the two to prevent self-fertilisation).

It seems there are even, occasionally, a few "rare" humans in a similar situation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite#Humans

That seems to put same-sex relationships between two separate individuals into perspective, doesn't it?

Quite banal really. All part of nature.

Some might say "Intelligent Design" - producing standardised, all purpose products on the one hand and slightly more fancy, customised goods on the other.

Nothing like a little fantasy and experimentation to break the monotony ! ... [it being excluded that the "Intelligent Designer" could possibly be guilty of making an error or even permitting totally uncontrolled random distribution as part of the process of creation].

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 9 May 2013 11:59:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The common garden snail is an hermaphrodite, as also I think are some plants. Some snails can self-fertilize, others can donate and receive conjointly with a 'partner' snail.
Many microbes simply undergo mitosis, splitting themselves to produce an identical clone - though occasionally with an unplanned 'mutation', sometimes with dire consequences.
Humans are just mixed-up, and rapidly becoming more so.

As for relational statistics from the Netherlands, it would be preferable to consult from a broader reference set, given the proclivity of that society to want to be the first to try anything radical.
1% of total divorces, but what % of divorces (or separation/breakup) specifically from same-sex 'marriages' or relationships; and what comparative average of longevity of such marriages or relationships - as against their hetero counterpart population?
Unless something has changed drastically, relevant statistics, as canvassed previously on this subject, do not present gay relationships in general in anything like a favourable light.

When there is genuine evidence of a broad and concerted commitment by the gay community at large to the foundational and binding tenets of 'marriage', as traditionally understood and respected, then, and only then, could there be a genuine case for 'marriage equality'.
I would suggest that a broad commitment to civil union would represent a solid first step to providing that evidence.
However, an argument by a boisterous minority that the absence of 'marriage equality' is preventing them from entering a genuine marital commitment, despite the availability of civil union provisions, rings hollow and evasive, and begs the question of true motivations.
Deficiencies evident in the tenacity and wholesomeness of heterosexual marriages in our society do not represent argument for 'lowering the bar', but rather for better education to develop higher ethical standards of social interaction, and thereby to 'raise the bar'.
Descending to the lowest common denominator is not a constructive way forward, and could only impact adversely on any aspirations to be a 'leader' in the Asian century, and on our international relationships generally, and particularly with our middle east trading partners.
Food for thought.
Posted by Saltpetre, Friday, 10 May 2013 2:59:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rights are always something given by one party to another. In this case homosexual people are asking for a right from the government but should the government be the ones who give such a right? Does it need to be even given by any one at all? The only reason people want government sanction of their relationship is because they accept the government definition of marriage as something that is legally sanctioned by the government. Why do they accept this? If you give up the freedom to define your own relationship to someone else then you have bigger problems than marriage equality. If you maintain the right to define your own relationship as you wish then the only other thing you might require is the legal benefits that married people have.

To have integrity as a human being you would need to maintain your right to define your own relationship as well as fighting for your legal rights. Anyone who does not want both these rights has less self respect than someone who does.

To want government to sanction your love, your sense of security or your worth to society is the sign of someone who is very insecure in themselves and very insecure about the validity of their relationship with their partner.

By all means fight for your legal rights with all your strength but introducing issues that are based on personal insecurity are a waste of taxpayers’ time and money.
Posted by phanto, Friday, 10 May 2013 1:09:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Saltpetre,

.

The problem is we have been conditioned for so long by our social and religious environment that we tend to lose sight of reality.

We have been conditioned to associate births and deaths with religion. But if we open our eyes and look around us at the birds and the bees, the flowers and the animals we can see them as purely natural phenomena.

Monogamy (marriage) is simply the pacification (civilisation) of the competition among males for the right of access to females for mating purposes. It developed 20 000 years before present day religions emerged and integrated it into their rites.

Homosexuality is also a perfectly natural phenomenon, just like heterosexuality. Society is only beginning to realise it, gradually getting used to it and timidly accepting it.

As Petter Boeckman, a zoologist at the Norwegian Natural History Museum of the University of Oslo, pointed out: "No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, ... a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue".

Religion historically regards homosexual sex acts as sinful, based essentially on an erroneous understanding of "natural law" (the law of nature) as shown by the results of the zoological research mentioned by Petter Boeckman.

Religious dogma is constantly proven wrong in its interpretation of nature by scientific research.

There is a perfume of "déjà vu" regarding the current debate on homosexual marriage, e.g., Galileo's condemnation for heresy when he declared in 1610 that the earth revolves around the sun.

It was not until November 4, 1992 that Pope John Paul II finally declared :

" The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture.... "

In 2000, he issued a formal apology for all the mistakes committed by the Catholic Church throughout its history, including the trial of Galileo.

De-conditioning mentalities is a long, slow process.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Friday, 10 May 2013 10:07:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear phanto,

.

You wrote:

"The only reason people want government sanction of their relationship is because they accept the government definition of marriage as something that is legally sanctioned by the government. Why do they accept this? ".
.

Abuse of political authority gave rise to the emergence of the notion of "civil rights" and the Magna Carter in 1215. Hitler and his henchmen sent homosexuals to the gas chambers not that long ago.

The fact that they did not accept " the government definition of marriage as something that is legally sanctioned by the government " did not prevent them from going to the gas chambers.

Societal attitudes around the world towards same-sex relationships have varied over time and place, from expecting all males to engage in same-sex relationships, to casual integration, through acceptance, to seeing the practice as a minor sin, repressing it through law enforcement and judicial mechanisms, and to proscribing it under penalty of death.

You observe:

" To want government to sanction your love, your sense of security or your worth to society is the sign of someone who is very insecure in themselves and very insecure about the validity of their relationship with their partner".

I am afraid you are projecting images, thoughts and feelings on homosexuals which they do not have. This is part of the problem, phanto. I am sorry to have to say so, but people who think like you are part of the problem.

If you are sincere in your wish to understand, then you have to make the supreme effort of putting yourself in their shoes - even if it may be repugnant to you (which I can understand and appreciate).

You conclude:

" ... introducing issues that are based on personal insecurity are a waste of taxpayers’ time and money".

The security of individual citizens is one of the most important fundamental missions of the State, if not the most important. It is its "raison d'être".

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Saturday, 11 May 2013 1:13:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Recourse before the French Constitutional Court

.

For those who understand French or are able to have it translated, here are the pleas of the right opposition party (UMP) opposing the new law legalising same-sex marriage, recently voted by the French parliament, and the response of the government in defence of the new law:

http://www.lefigaro.fr/assets/pdf/recours-deputes-ump-et-udi.pdf

http://www.lefigaro.fr/assets/pdf/recours-senateurs-ump-et-udi.pdf

http://www.lefigaro.fr/assets/pdf/reponse-du-gouvernement.pdf

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Saturday, 11 May 2013 3:54:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>To want government to sanction your love, your sense of security or your worth to society is the sign of someone who is very insecure in themselves and very insecure about the validity of their relationship with their partner.<<

That's a bit unfair. Wanting government to sanction your love, your sense of security or your worth to society is - i.e. wanting to get married - isn't a sign of insecurity. I think most of us want to get married - I'd like to if I meet the right woman - and I wouldn't call most people insecure.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Saturday, 11 May 2013 5:36:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

Occasionally you write with great wisdom, common sense and understanding. At other times you disagree with me.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 11 May 2013 7:22:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What have you got against heterosexuals, phanto?

"To want government to sanction your love, your sense of security or your worth to society is the sign of someone who is very insecure in themselves and very insecure about the validity of their relationship with their partner."

Two of my favorite heterosexuals were my parents... and I think they had every right to be married as they wanted to.
Posted by WmTrevor, Saturday, 11 May 2013 8:20:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear david f, Tony Lavis and WmTrevor,

.

I am glad to see I am in such good company ... yet I meditate on this:

.

Phlebas the Phoenician, a fortnight dead,
Forgot the cry of gulls, and the deep sea swell
And the profit and loss.
A current under sea
Picked his bones in whispers. As he rose and fell
He passes the stages of his age and youth
Entering the whirlpool.
Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.

(T.S. Eliot's "Death by Water)

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Saturday, 11 May 2013 9:03:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To want government to sanction your love, your sense of security or your worth to society is the sign of someone who is very insecure in themselves and very insecure about the validity of their relationship with their partner".

I guess there could possibly be lower lifeforms on this planet than the red-headed witch or the RAbbott but I certainly have never encountered one. Just the thought that there could be any connection between my security & their approval is too stupid for words.
Posted by praxidice, Saturday, 11 May 2013 9:24:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

... and this:

.

The broad-backed hippopotamus
Rests on his belly in the mud;
Although he seems so firm to us
He is merely flesh and blood.

Flesh-and-blood is weak and frail,
Susceptible to nervous shock;
While the True Church can never fail
For it is based upon a rock.

The hippo's feeble steps may err
In compassing material ends,
While the True Church need never stir
To gather in its dividends.

The 'potamus can never reach
The mango on the mango-tree;
But fruits of pomegranate and peach
Refresh the Church from over sea.

At mating time the hippo's voice
Betrays inflexions hoarse and odd,
But every week we hear rejoice
The Church, at being one with God.

The hippopotamus's day
Is passed in sleep; at night he hunts;
God works in a mysterious way--
The Church can sleep and feed at once.

I saw the 'potamus take wing
Ascending from the damp savannas,
And quiring angels round him sing
The praise of God, in loud hosannas.

Blood of the Lamb shall wash him clean
And him shall heavenly arms enfold,
Among the saints he shall be seen
Performing on a harp of gold.

He shall be washed as white as snow,
By all the martyr'd virgins kist,
While the True Church remains below
Wrapt in the old miasmal mist.

(T.S. Eliot's "The Hippopotamus")

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Sunday, 12 May 2013 12:42:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy