"In this regard, I very much doubt legalising gay marriage will achieve the positive net result we are all after."

So time for an empirical experiment, then...

Legalise gay marriage and 'we' will all have a before and after chance to compare, rather than guess or doubt.

Also in the meantime you could start to address the deficiencies in heterosexual marriages... all the statistics demonstrating the social situations surrounding the 'breakdown of traditional marriage' have been achieved without the legality of gay marriage in Australia.

You should 'find another whipping boy'. (Unless you like that sort of thing?)

"I'm not for a moment saying homosexuals don't feel real pain or that they aren't sometimes treated poorly. The issue - the only issue in the end - is how we address this as a society. In this regard, I very much doubt legalising gay marriage will achieve the positive net result we are all after."

So lemme get this, er, straight.

In your opinion:
1. The marriage equality issue only affects homosexuals (transgender and intersex people don't matter and / or exist).
2. Having your relationship viewed as second-class doesn't amount to being treated poorly.
3. Because you don't think reducing discrimination against LGBTI people will reduce discrimination against LGBTI people, we shouldn't reduce discrimination against LGBTI people.

That's unreal. You should decide all of our social policies.

The author is displaying typical right wing Christ-stain compassion; you know that one that saw the cover up Pedo priest.

Basically the author’s piece boils down to, his morals are correct and true, and anybody thinking differently is either a mental defective or Santan vassal.

The lack of logic is the Author's, rather than Kevin Rudd's.
I just don't see where any of us have any right whatsoever, to decide what happens between consenting adults, in the privacy of their own homes. Be they (allegedly celibate) bible bashing, pulpit pounding holy rollers, and past the age of consent, and or, just different folks?
There's enough evidence for those prepared to somehow set aside rusted on prejudice, and actually look; to establish as a scientific certainty, that sexual orientation is a product of nature, rather than choice.
Given that is so, those with this naturally occurring aberration; shouldn't then have their particular problems compounded, by being forced to comply with a very different set of rules or social mores, than those we accept as our normal due. Or indeed, denied rights we take for granted for ourselves. i.e., the right to happiness and physical affection; and just be themselves, without being asked to pay an absurd price, by abysmally ignorant, dark age nincompoops!
The very worst of who, may well still be in the closet, or in permanent denial; and or, butching it up?
If you or I don't like what I see, you or I, remain perfectly free to look elsewhere!
Rhrosty.

Part of living in a (relatively) free and open society is that all of get to do things that other people don't like. Lots of people don't like me advocating atheism, or speaking as a global warming sceptic. That's tough for them, but they put up with it because they want to have the right to do things that I don't like too.

If you think legalising gay marriage will 'harm society' -- whatever that means -- you have to show how that will happen, and why the hypothetical harm outweighs the benefits of allowing people who want to marry their same-sex partners to do so. I don't see any of that here.

What's wrong with homosexuals getting married. They should be able to do anything they like. Because getting married doesn't make an unnatural act, a natural act, does it. Homosexual people practice a very unnatural sexual act. Getting Married will never change that.

misanthrope - Homosexual people practice a very unnatural sexual act.

I believe their argument (definitely NOT mine) is they ARE 'normal' & whatever they do IS 'natural'. I have suggested on occasion that if animals generally preferred their own sex, there wouldn't exactly be a glut of them. Judging from the responses, it seems the human AC-DC set spend a disproportionate amount of time observing animal behaviour because they claim to know far more about activity between bulls than any grazier with a lifetime of experience. Personally I would have expected the animals to have a rather short lifespan if the average cow-cockie caught them at it. Dunno about AC-DC cows, grazier friends tell me they have never heard of it.

For what its worth, there is a phenomenon noted in some lizards & monkeys for example, that is commonly believed to be homosexual activity, but which scientists familiar with the species in question state is nothing more than a show of dominance. Whether or not homosexuality does occur in animals, it must be relatively rare if the things still exist on the planet.

praxidice, there's a whole Wikipedia article on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

There's also an social evolutionary hypothesis that having homosexual uncles and aunts improves an organism's chances of survival, so there may be quite sufficient evolutionary reasons for the development of homosexuality.

But that's not really the point, is it? If we were to ban humans from doing anything animals don't do because it's 'unnatural' we'd be crawling around on all fours in the open air, naked. It's unnatural for you to use a computer or drive a car, but I imagine you'd be fairly upset if someone told you that you weren't allowed to. For that matter it's unnatural for anyone to get married at all.

Once again it all reduces to the fact that a relatively small group of people want to do something which other people are already allowed to do, and there's simply no convincing reason to say no. Do you agree?

Jon J

There is nothing natural about a penis or other object being shoved into the back passage, and both parties are at risk. The medical risks are many, some considerable. You don't suffer similar risks operating a computer (your irrelevant analogy) and if you would like to publicise your relationship with your ACER laptop, by all means put an advertisement in the Public Notices of your local newspaper.

The Gillard government has enacted over eighty law changes to ensure there is no discrimination against homosexuals. No lesser authority than the Australian Human Rights Commission does not believe that the Marriage Act discriminates against gays.

Yet you want people to believe you are being discriminated against? Fat chance.

Noticeably, you are not arguing for the rights of Muslims (polygamy), so your concept of 'rights' is what suits you personally at the time. Your 'rights' are your personal wants. You probably don't support the institution of marriage at all and just want to get its gold stamp.

Marriage is by definition between a man and a woman.

onthebeach:

"There is nothing natural about a penis or other object being shoved into the back passage."

Says who? Who are you to define what's 'natural'? What do you mean by 'natural' anyway? Do you think if it appears 'unnatural' to you it has to be 'unnatural' to everybody?

"The medical risks are many, some considerable."

The medical risks with heterosexual sex are many as well.

"You don't suffer similar risks operating a computer."

RSI? Carpal tunnel syndrome?

"The Gillard government has enacted over eighty law changes to ensure there is no discrimination against homosexuals."

And people like you have fought every single one.

"Noticeably, you are not arguing for the rights of Muslims (polygamy), so your concept of 'rights' is what suits you personally at the time. Your 'rights' are your personal wants."

I'm straight. So are most of the 60% of the other Australians who want marriage equality. We're fighting for the rights of others.

"Marriage is by definition between a man and a woman."

'Marriage is by definition between a white man and a white woman.'

Wasn't it?

On the Beach, Anal sex is common in hetrosexual sex, as the anus is also a sensitive sexual area of the body.
However, you are stepping into an area that is none of your business,
as to what what happens between consenting adults, either homosexual or hetrosexual.

KIPP and the rest of you that say homosexual sexual activity is quite natural! What absolute rubbish ! ON the Beach is quite correct in what he says. Just look at the human anatomy, of both a male and female person - the sexual act as practiced by homosexuals is most definitely unnatural! All this rubbish some of you are peddling trying to make out homosexual sexual activity, is all OK, what an idiotic statement to make. God help us!

I'm not saying homosexuals can't do what they want, what I am saying, the homosexual sexual act, is absolutely UNNATURAL!

I listened to a thought provoking discussion on the many dimensions and ramifications of marriage equality this afternoon, the contributors come up with some very interesting ideas and theories on why this has become such an issue and discuss topics which have not appeared from either the staunch pro or con camps as yet:

http://vanguardradio.net/podcast/2013/4/1/bourgeois-tyranny

Kipp,
Anal sex is not common among heterosexual couples and women don't like being buggered, ask around your female acquaintances and see how many would willingly submit to sodomy.

The logic of the author in exposing the illogicality of Kevin Rudd and other same-sex marriage proponents is commendable.

The homosexual lobby's argument that a same-sex relationship is equal to a heterosexual relationship is devoid of logic.

"The homosexual lobby's argument that a same-sex relationship is equal to a heterosexual relationship is devoid of logic." No, the objection is not to claim that same and opposite sex pairings are equally valid. It is to the claim that they are identical. They aren't and (I think that) many Australians who are completely happy for the law to guarantee that people in same sex relationships have all the legal rights and are accorded all the social respect of people in heterosexual relationships baulk only at the claim that same sex relationships are not only as valid as opposite sex ones but are, in every respect, identical to them. They are not identical, and the proposal to call them "marriages" not only turns a blind eye to this fact but forcibly deprives the people of the language needed to reflect a difference which they clearly see and whose importance seems obvious to them.

Why don't those quite properly wanting their same sex relationships to be equally valued offer to use a word other than the well ingrained and widely understood "marriage" to indicate them? If they did, it's likely all remaining non religious opposition to legalising same sex relationships would disappear instantly. And doesn't resolving impasses usually require both sides to give a little?

And if, as I'm sure they would argue, time will show that people get used to letting "marriage" stand for all person pairings, why not go with start with another word and let the meaning of "marriage" be changed over time by people usage in the way that English normally (and naturally) evolves.

I know it's a stretch but what if those who argue that the genders of people are so irrelevant that its silly to have different words for different sexually defined relationships also argued that, as all children are equally loved by their parents irrespective of their sex, we should simply call them all boys?

Can anyone tell me, exactly, what would the legal right for gay marriage DO to anyone else?
If it was un-natural for anyone to have anal sex, then the penis would not be able to fit into a rectum.

And yes, heterosexual anal sex is actually more common than you think, especially in very Christian countries like Ireland and Italy, and in strict Muslim countries.
If they aren't meant to use contraception and the old boy wants to have sex without producing another mouth to feed, how do you think he does it?

Just because you live in ignorant bliss about what is going on in other people's bedrooms, or wherever, doesn't mean it isn't happening!

>>as all children are equally loved by their parents irrespective of their sex, we should simply call them all boys?<<

It's not such a strange idea: we used to call all children 'girls'. Check out this video - you only need to watch the first 4 minutes but the rest is quite enjoyable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f7urmRaRxY

Cheers,

Tony

Suse,
No it isn't,anal sex is practiced among a small minority of homosexual men,the Feminists who run the LGBTI movement say that something like 20% of hetero couples practice anal sex but as with all their "statistics" there's no evidence. Remember when they used to say that 10% of the population was homosexual? In reality it's less than 2%.
Anal sex is a sado-masochistic practice, people do it to hurt, degrade and dominate others or because they are addicted to receiving pain. In pornography it's a prevalent theme but it's portrayed in exactly that light, the reciever is being subjugated and sodomised against their will or against their better judgement.

Jay, if there is no proof re heterosexual anal sex, then what are you on about?

The legal activities going on in other people's bedrooms are no one else's business.
A gay couple having married sex in their own bedroom will ever affect you, so why the carry on?

Its interesting to see homosexuals scrambling for state sanctioned marriages when its popularity with straights is at an all-time low & falling. I get the impression its all about a perception of 'respectability' on the part of the AC-DC set, probably because traditional society has been geared to families & hence good little consumers. No doubt the underlying religious imperative plays a major part too, even for those who claim to have no beliefs. When its all said & done, most people have a family background in one of the multiple religious 'franchises', even if several generations in the past. On the other hand, we have a few christian albeit not religious folk who don't give a rats about a gubmunt stamp on their relationship. Seems to me the latter group have a better handle on what relationships are all about. Is it REALLY critical to have approval of some over-officious bureaucrazies ??

Suseonline, "Can anyone tell me, exactly, what would the legal right for gay marriage DO to anyone else?"

What a switch (if it ever worked, LOL), you are supposed to be putting the case for gay marriage. You cannot do that with any conviction because it is just something that some noisy gay activists want as a gold stamp for their gay love. The feminists and Left 'Progressives' see the opportunity to interfere with a traditional institution they despise.

On top of that, you cannot make a convincing case for any claim of lost 'rights' because the Gillard government abolished any discrimination through 80+ law enactments. The Australian Human Rights Commission does not believe that the Marriage Act does not curtail any gay 'rights'. Yet without anything but a mantra repreated parrot fashion, you contradict the Gillard government and the Australian Human Rights Commission.

Overall, it isn't what some homosexuals and interfering Progressives want, is it? Australian women and men value marriage as it is and always has been and do not want the Marriage Act trashed. Marriage is by definition between a man and a woman. Nothing will ever change that and its meaning goes deeper than the frivolous simplicity of 'love' defined by its opponents. Most advocates for gay marriage are in fact opponents of traditional marriage, so often being caught out sinking their large boots into marriage in the same breath as they propose it for gays. Odd that is. Or maybe it is only to be expected, given the usual suspects.

to be continued..

contd..

Suseonline, "If it was un-natural for anyone to have anal sex, then the penis would not be able to fit into a rectum"

You must be joking, right? Then you go on to argue that since the practice is inflicted on women through ignorance, dundamentalist religions, lack of education, unavailability of contraception (in fact denial of womens' rights) it is OK. Yet in other threads where it often isn't even relevant, you rail against religion and male control of womens' bodies.

All realise that you are the forum's Number 1 expert and advocate for gays (you usually capitalise that word, making it into a proper noun!) and the forum's Number 1 scourge of heterosexual men, who are apparently eternally blameworthy for their violence, control of women and a multitude of other sins (although also say you have some men who love you).

But even so, don't you care enough about women and their health that you give tacit support to what you believe is widespread sodomy of women. What about the health consequences? Or do you believe that all of the reported physical and disease consequences are fabrications by doctors?

Of course women and the broader community are right to be concerned about sexual practices that spread disease and can easily result in infertility, damage to a foetus and even death. Of course the community and health authorities are concerned about what goes on in bedrooms. Think the Grim Reaper advertisement. Aren't you worried about STIs and damage to your rectum?

My "The Australian Human Rights Commission does not believe that the Marriage Act does not curtail any gay 'rights'."

should be,

"The Australian Human Rights Commission does not believe that the Marriage Act curtails any gay rights."

and of course statitics for diseases caused by sodomy are never available. Speak to any honest doctor and you will be surprised that sodomy is extremely unhealthy despite Susies fanciful comments on design.

Onthebeach, you are making sweeping statements about me and other supporters of gay marriage that are untrue, which shouldn't surprise me.

Did I say that anal sex was a healthy way to have sex?
No I didn't. I certainly wouldn't go there.

I merely pointed out that it is also practiced in the heterosexual community.

I have been happily married to a wonderful man for 26 years this year,
Onthebeach, how about you?
If you aren't married then you must be a gay marriage supporter, right?

The only males I dislike are men who dislike women.
I take people as they come, gay or not.

And here is the main point I want to make Onthebeach, it really doesn't bother me what you think of me because it won't stop me expressing my opinion.

Runner, are you saying that there are dishonest doctors, or only those who do not believe in Sky Fairies.

On the Beach,Same sex relationships are only recognised by Centrelink,
if either of the same sex couples are receiving any Centrelink payments.
You have obviously informed yourself on the said "80 pieces of legislation" that you mention, though why! As you appear to have a strong negative attitude towards gays and lesbians.
Studies have shown that persons who have a strong homophobia attitude, are inclined to have latent homosexual tendencies themselves.

Kipp

'Runner, are you saying that there are dishonest doctors, or only those who do not believe in Sky Fairies.'

actually Kipp those doctors that deny that the anus is designed to pass waste. That does take some pseudo science to explain away. I am sure you will find some.

Kipp, prove it!
Link to the study please.
Homophobia is caused primarily by women and their attitude toward heterosexual men, ever heard the statement "All the GOOD men are either married or Gay"? The implication of that statement is that there are three types of men, Gays and married men are good, other men are bad.
Heterosexual men have no natural enmity toward homosexual men, they're not competing for females and only want to have sex with each other so they're no threat to us.
Women habitually use homosexuality as a taunt to intimidate and belittle men whom they personally don't find attractive or who have rejected their sexual advances. The same can be said of the taunt "He's a Creep", it has the same effect, a woman or group of women will label a man they don't find attractive a "Creep" as a way of cutting him out of the sexual pecking order. Heterosexual men feel threatened by the label "Gay" because it limits their access to women and renders them socially unacceptable leading to ostracism and ridicule, we're not actually threatened by homosexuals in person.
Men compete for access to women's reproductive capacity, women choose which men get to reproduce and which men don't, to be unjustly labelled a "Fag" or a "Poofter" is a lasting black mark against a man.
"Poofter Bashing", pseudo homophobic banter and male to male violence generally is all about impressing women and establishing a sexual hierarchy, "See girls, we're not homos".
Your spurious assertion about latent homosexuality is just a standard response, I don't know your gender but if you're a male you're just saying "See I'm not a Homo" by taking a stance sympathetic to women's sensibilities on the issue and if you're a woman the explanation is as above.

Jay of Melbourne "Homophobia is caused primarily by women and their attitude toward heterosexual men, ever heard the statement "All the GOOD men are either married or Gay"? The implication of that statement is that there are three types of men, Gays and married men are good, other men are bad."

Really?
Link to the studies please.

What a load of rubbish!
What about the single heterosexual women out there Jay?
Aren't they primarily seeking single men?

Homophobia is an affliction suffered by some ignorant, rude people of either gender.
Most heterosexual women aren't concerned or 'threatened' by gay men or women either Jay, if you think about it.

The main people 'threatened' by gay people are surely those who don't feel good about themselves, and choose to put other 'different' people (eg Gay, obese, different skin colour, different religion, different culture, atheists, etc) down in a vain attempt at boosting their own self esteem...

.

To all & sundry,

.

Apparently many posters here ignore the results of recent zoological research evidencing that homosexuality is a perfectly natural phenomenon, just like heterosexuality:

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

For the past 2000 years we regarded homosexuality with repugnance and hostility on the erroneous belief that it was unnatural and sinful, as asserted by most religions.

For all these years, though an infinitely small minority, homosexuals have been stigmatised, assaulted, discriminated against and rejected by society.

According to professor Didier Raoult of France, lesbians, gays and bisexuals (LGB) constitute the largest category of suicides in Europe and the US. Suicide rates of LGB are 2 to 6 times greater than that of the rest of the population in these countries.

A study in New Zealand found that 32.1 percent of LGB youth aged 21 and under had attempted suicide, whereas only 7.1 percent of same-age heterosexual youth had made such an attempt (Fergusson, Horwood, & Beautrais, 1999).

The 2005 National School Climate Survey in the US, of middle and high school students, concluded that “anti-LGBT language, as well as bullying and harassment on the basis of sexual orientation remain common in America’s schools”. Nearly two-thirds felt unsafe at school. More than 64 percent of students said they had been harassed, and 17.6 percent said they had been physically assaulted because of their sexual orientation.

Gay and lesbian youth make up 11 to 35 percent of homeless and runaway youth in the US. A study in Seattle found that 40 percent of homeless youth identified as LGB.

Life on the street represents risks for homeless youth. Homeless and runaway youth have high rates of mental illness, violence, sexual exploitation, and substance abuse. They also have a high rate of suicide attempts. One study found that 76 percent of homeless youth reported attempting suicide at least once, and 86 percent of that group reported more than one attempt.

It is time to rectify that longstanding injustice.

.

Suse,
QED, you're doing it yourself, using female shaming tactics you've illustrated my point nicely, women get to decide who is "bad" and who is "good", who is the winner in the sexual matchmaking game and who are the losers.
Social mores change over time but Men didn't create the current Western sexual "zeitgeist", it's a product of Feminism and Feminism is a reflection of the true nature of women.
"All the GOOD men are either married or Gay" Right?
Men support Gay Marriage because high status, high income women support it, it's a way of saying "I'm not a Homo, I'm marriage material, I'm a good person",men who don't support Gay marriage are as you and Kipp believe, insecure, unmanly and unfit to reproduce.
Women who are indoctrinated by or part of the Feminist social structure use the tactic of shaming men as ignorant homphobes to select the type of man they want, so called "traditional" women use the tactic of shaming men as "Gay" to select the men they want, different type of women want different types of men but it's still women who drive the system of sexual politics and dominance hierarchy.
Here's a video which explains female shaming tactics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV9TQmQ6SYk

Jay of Melbourne, if you want to forgive your own homophobic thoughts by suggesting it's all the feminists fault, then off you go.
It's a very bizarre notion.

I know many 'Good' single men, even if you don't.
Are you blaming some men's inability to form relationships with women on feminists then?
Lol!
Maybe they should look closer to home...

As Banjo Paterson discusses above, Homosexuality has been with us since the dawn of time, long before Feminism was thought up.

Gay marriage is slowly being accepted, country by country, so you might want to prepare for Australia inevitably joining them, sooner than you think.

Suse, give it a rest, you're just raving now, you don't read my posts and you don't watch the links so how can we debate each other on this footing?
I'm not "homophobic" and I'm not against Gays marrying but I insist on honesty from both sides, the push for Gay marriage and LGBTI rights is driven by Feminism. Feminism is the current evolutionary phase of Marxism, (which is actually what Marx predicted would happen) and Feminists long ago co-opted the liberation struggles of all ethnic, racial and sexual minority groups in this country and subordinated them to Marxian doctrine.
Watch the video, it makes sense, women want men to do what they want them to do and they use shaming and corecive language to get what they want, Feminism is female supremacism, "Traditionalism" is female supremacy.
Feminists want men to submit to their legal authority whereas traditional women are goddesses and goddesses only dispense their favours upon receipt of a tribute.
You Suse don't seem to understand either the Marxian Feminist pro Gay Marriage nor the traditionalist anti Gay marriage positions, I'm opposed to both of them but I insist that both sides be honest.
What really gets under my skin is when people like you and Kipp or Runner churn out the same lies over and over and claim them as truths without any backup or justification, the lying on both sides is the reason there's such acrimony over an attempt to change legal processes which is on it's own merit utterly ludicrous and really a non issue in the minds of normal people.

I cannot see any logic in the argument advanced against legalising same sex marriage will weaken the institution of marriage etc. In my view, allowing more people (in this case those of the same-sex) to marry by simple mathematics means you have more people who are married in our society: more people who freely consent to enter into a legal commitment with another person. All the arguments against same-sex marriage are just a smokescreen for continued prejudice by people belonging to the majority of the population who are heterosexual, against those who are different (have a different sexual orientation).
Sadly, much of this prejudice has its source in religious people who villify, demonise and lie about GLBTI people from some imagined higher moral ground.

Robal,
Pro Gay marriage advocates are prejudiced against opponents of Gay marriage to a far more extreme degree than conservatives are against homosexuals.
See this isn't about straight or Gay people it's about ideology and political power, there is no other aspect to the campaign, it's simple Cold War style bickering between two opposing creeds based on two toxic ideologies.
Nobody from either side is considering the side effects of their actions and I for one am concerned for the effect this change in procedure would have on Gay men. Does anyone still remember the tragic story of comedian Matt Lucas and his partner?
The risk of suicide among men who have just broken off a long term relationship or ended a marriage is elevated tenfold, male marriages will be short, the divorce rate will be high and the suicide rate among Gay men will rise.
The GLBTI movement is run by Marxian Feminists ,they don't give a damn about men in general, if Gay marriage is approved are all married men and separated men in crisis situations going to be treated equally?
Presently the institution of marriage is under the exclusive sanction of "traditional" communities, are the GLBTI people going to share power and respect the views of traditionalists or will they only escalate their campaign to eradicate such views and traditional communities? If the push for Gay mariage fails no one will have lost anything and a state of detente between the two camps will exist, if the pro side wins they will seek to destroy the naysayers.Given the level of hostility in your post and those of Kipp and Suse you give me little hope of "Marriage equality" should the marriage act be altered to include homosexual unions.
See your side openly hate and agitate to eradicate Christian and conservative thinking and customs, but conservative Christians don't even go near talking about eradicating pro homosexual views and customs.

All that has been put forward yet again, are the broken record unscientific personal opinions of a few activists, dominated and led by a large rump of leftie political 'Progressives', that gay marriage MUST be legislated to be a carbon copy of State regulated hetereo marriage.

At the same time those who put the 'initiative' forward also contend that marriage is stuffed as an institution anyhow and they have no regard for it at all. In fact the feminists and 'Progressives' who want to dump hetero marriage on gays have been vigorously denouncing marriage for years, arguing among other things that marriage is patriarchal and offensive and the State should stay out of bedrooms. Why then do they now want to foist it onto gays?

No mention of any unintended consequences and no survey of homosexuals to ensure that the majority want or even appreciate the State regulation and control of gay relationships that has already been brought in by feminists and 'Progressives'.

Yet the same feminists and 'Progressives' who made such a mess of de facto provisions now want to apply more of their State regulation and control to gay relationships and lifestyle. The bait is that State institutionalisation of gay relationships might do something positive somehow. How exactly? Because some multimillionaire talk show host, here today gone tomorrow, makes her gay marriage part of her show to appeal to an easily impressed female TV audience who believe in 'the one', big hair, fairytale marriage and last but not least, free presents?

There is big money for lawyers in applying laws affecting heterosexuals to gay relationships. Also, radical feminists and the comfortable cafe latte set who comprise the political 'Progressives' get to boast of another feckless ideological win. Serial activists find some other placard to wave about. But what exactly do the majority of gays get out of it except State legal and bureucratic interference in their lives forever along with the threat of expensive lawyer bills?

Jay of Melbourne and On the Beach, what ever personal negative issues you have experienced in life; taking your anger/fustration out on others will not help you; go and speak to someone.

I mean that sincerely.

Jay & onthebeach have hit the nail squarely on the head. Furthermore, nothing in their posts even hints at anger / frustration other than possibly in attempting to communicate with 'welded shut' minds. It is good to see the tired old line 'Studies have shown that persons who have a strong homophobia attitude, are inclined to have latent homosexual tendencies themselves' trotted out yet again. There was in fact only ONE study, and anyone who cares to read the original report will discover a very different story than that promoted by the homosexual camp. Not to worry, who would ever dream of allowing the truth to interfere with a good story ??

Kipp,

Why should I be labelled as having 'negative attitudes' just because like so may Australians I want the Marriage Act to stay as it is?

Up until very recently the homosexual community were seriously offended, horrified, by any 'negative' suggestion that the State 'breeder' laws be applied to gays. That was regarded as needless State interference in gays' personal privacy and rights.

Now you want to switch, to flip-flop, so anyone with the termerity to hold an alternate view is suddenly 'negative'. That is a bit rich.

I happen to agree with the view long held by homosexuals before younger trendy gay activists recently joined forced with the feminists and leftie 'Progressives', that queer lifestyles should be outside of the constraints and sameness of society.

In fact I reckon gays will rue the day they were led by the nose by those interests, who have such a sorry record for telling others how to lead their lives and passing laws for more State interference in the private lives of citizens. They have a sorry record of complete stuff-ups and for refusing to be held to account for any of them. While I am not gay, I reckon you had lifestyle options and choices that were worth preserving. In this one the gays are in the mud pool with some nasty saltwater crocs. Your choice of course.

.

Dear Jay Of Melbourne,

.

You wrote to Suseonline:

"Watch the video, it makes sense, women want men to do what they want them to do and they use shaming and coercive language to get what they want ...".
.
The "video" is an interesting sociological document.

The way I read it, the woman says sour grapes ("Are you gay?") when she can't get what she wants. But this deals a terrible blow to the self-esteem of the narrator who is deeply hurt by this unexpected challenge to his manhood. He sees himself as the victim of a machiavellian stratagem developed by womankind in order to gain dominance over men and maintain them in servitude.

For the narrator to extrapolate from what was, for him, a somewhat traumatising experience with one particular woman whose advances he rejected, is indicative of his attitude towards women generally.

Perhaps the "Are you gay?" should be completed by "Are you paranoiac?".

It is a common feature of nature that the males of animal species generally seek to dominate the females and maintain them in captivity. We human beings are no exception to the rule. This prehistoric practice persists, even today, in certain cultures in the Middle-East.

At the same time, we men seem to harbour a deep-rooted inferiority complex with regard to women. We try to dominate women but women are more powerful than us. Women can give birth. We can't. Moreover, our lives depend entirely on our mothers for far longer periods than for any other animal species.

As a result, our mother occupies a very special place in our psyche.

Our vision of other women is even more complex. Not only are they intimidating by their unique potential to create, but they also possess the power to seduce and bewitch. And, to top it all off, they are "disgustingly impure".

And if women are strange creatures, what about homosexuals who are even stranger - neither totally men nor totally women ?

The female fruit is treacherous. Bisexuality, homosexuality, and asexuality are perceived as straight-out aggressions and a danger to mankind.

.

Jay of Melbourne goes on about Marxism and the Cold War, in regard to the fight for Gay marriage rights. What the hell for? They were around many decades ago...lol!
Talk about me raving on Jay.

Onthebeach, Praxidice and Jay of Melbourne couldn't give a damn about homosexual rights. They are now, and always have been, homophobic on this site anyway.

Calling all gay rights activists feminists always amuses me, given that most of the activists are gay males!
Mind you, for these sorts of homophobic, anti-female guys, it's the feminists fault for ALL of societies woes...

Jay trying to protest that he is 'concerned' about gay men having a problem with gay marriage legislation is laughable, if it wasn't so awful.

Banjo,
Yeah that guy is a male separatist so his remarks do stray from the point but a lot of men could benefit from taking a step back from their relationships with women and start viewing things from a male point of view. "Stardusk" and his "co conspirators" on youtube go deeply into the psychology of the goddess/madonna complex among men, what they're developing is a program to break damaged men away from that mentality and that video is just one segment of a long project. The meat of his argument on homophobia is sound though, don't you think? Homosexuals are no threat to straight men but to be labeled a "Gay" or a "Creep" is a devastating thing for a man because at a stroke it cuts him out of the dominance hierarchy.Women don't physically set up that hierarchy but they choose who wins and who loses, men's inhumanity to their own gender is all directed at gaining advantage in the struggle for reproductive rights.
what Stardusk and his MGTOW movement are proposing is a society of men who are not competing against each other and who express platonic and romantic love for their brothers, his catchphrase is "We're not old men, young men,Gay men, straight men, Black men or White men...we're just men"

Suse,
Seriously? You really believe that the LGBTI and Marriage equality movements are not Feminist? The prominent Gay men who have subordinated themselves to the LGBTI cause are open about their alliances:
http://www.salon.com/2008/11/25/proposition_8_religion/
Don't you understand dialectics or the concept of synthesis?
LGBTI and Marriage Equality are based on Feminist critique, use Feminist activist tactics and espouse the same broad objectives, some Gay men have fused their activism with Feminism because it's the dominant Left political tendency, without Feminism there is no Left Wing in the 21st century. Apart from a few cynical Christians and Liberals LGBTI and Marriage equality advocates are all Leftists and Leftists are by definition Feminists, it's not possible to be part of that world if you're not.

Suseonline - Onthebeach, Praxidice and Jay of Melbourne couldn't give a damn about homosexual rights. They are now, and always have been, homophobic on this site anyway.

Actually I have in the past had (purely) business relationships with three different homosexual males, all of which were mutually profitable. In every situation, both parties knew exactly where the other was coming from and there was never as much as hint of 'crossing the line'. Had that occurred, it would have been a toss-up whether I'd provide the knuckle sandwich or the partner would get her claws out. I had noticed however that the homosexual tribe had changed over the years but since I'd had no reason to deal with any of their ilk for years, I didn't give the matter much thought. A year or so back I struck one particularly evil (male homosexual) piece of work on the periphery of a charitable interest of mine. This turkey was well out of place, I've certainly never heard of another homosexual within cooee of charity, but then there was an ulterior motive at play here. In hindsight, I can vividly recognize the extreme feminist factor as identified by Jay & onthebeach ... the grub in question exhibited the worst possible features of both psychotic male & psychotic female with absolutely no redeeming features whatever. I've also been unfortunate enough to stumble across the odd lesbian over the years, suffice to say they were perfect examples of multiple demon possession that made 'The Exorcist' look like a nursery story. Maybe those were particularly bad examples however I won't be going out of my way to add lesbians or any homosexuals for that matter to my dinner-party list.

Jay of Melbourne has a problem with women, and Praxidice has a fear of gay people.
I repeat! Both of you go and talk to someone, about your personal anxieties; then get on with your life.

Kipp - Jay of Melbourne has a problem with women, and Praxidice has a fear of gay people.

I see the story has changed, now I'm not a closet queer but scared of the clowns :) :) :) What will it be next week pray tell ?? as for Jays supposed 'problem with women', its probably that he prefers the company of cute / straight females than crackpot AC-DC males, mind you I'm inclined to prefer cute / straight females myself.

Praxidice,
It's only in the last few years that I've met any "decent" middle class homosexual men, all of the Gays I knew years ago in the hospitality industry were heavy drug dealers/users and voracious party animals, that's why I used to hang around with them after work.
Have Kipp or Suse or anyone here actually been to a Gay club?
It's an eye opener, when some semi naked queen wafts past you on the dancefloor and pops Amyl Nitrate under your nose you know you're not in Kansas anymore and a visit to the toilets is an instant education in the finer points of Gay hedonism.
In all those years I was seriously propositioned only once and it was because a friend and I were very stoned, very tired and very drunk and he forgot himself, I excused myself from the situation and went home and he apologised to me the next day.
These days I'm not sure I would even be admitted to a Gay club, I don't go out anymore and I've totally given up drinking and drugs but as far as I know a lot of the venues have strict Gay only door policies. Back in the day they'd let anyone in, my wife and I and our straight friends used to go and party at Bassline, Temple, Tasty and the Peel and it was all peace and love, nowadays I don't know.

Jay - It's only in the last few years that I've met any "decent" middle class homohomosexualssexual men

The few homosexual males I once knew on satisfactory terms were in hospitality except for one IT geek. None at all in my present circle and highly unlikely to be any in the future. There are two separate lesbian couples in the township but they are on sufference, As long as they don't rock the boat the community will leave them to do their thing, otherwise ...... Its not a place for AC-DC males to live, one pair does visit family, albeit rarely, but thats all. The ones I encountered in business during the years pre tree-change convinced me I don't need creatures like that in my life. As others have commented, it appears there has been a feminization process that resulted in a whole new kind of evil. Thankfully its primarily a big city event, we bushies enjoy a slower paced & more conservative lifestyle :) :) :)

Misanthrope seems to be very unnaturally obsessed with the sex lives of others, in particular gay men. These articles bring out the strangest things in others.

As to the article, its argument was unclear and confused. Pretty much sums up the vast majority of anti-gay marriage rants.

Gays, as I understand it, already have the financial equivalent of heterosexual marriages in taxation and family benefits in the same way that non-marrieds enjoy the same equvalent benefits even though they are not married as such.
What I don't understand is why gays want to redefine an institution that has its source in the Bible and Christianity, both of which deny the moral validity of gay practise. That said, as a Bible-believing Christian, I have really good friends and relatives who are gay, live together and even have kids; they don't particularly want to be married and wonder what the fuss is all about - as do I.

Same sex or opposite sex persons in a committed relationship and receiving any Centrelink payments, must inform Centrelink.
To not do so makes them liable for prosecution, for defrauding the Australian taxpayer.

TAC - an institution that has its source in the Bible and Christianity,

Does it ?? With the exception of 'a man shall leave his father' & the odd mention of a marriage feast, there is precious little in the good book about marriage format. I would have expected a pedantic breakdown of all the ins and outs, especially considering the hebrew / jewish predisposition for complicating everything beyond recognition. For what its worth, the feast thing was probably already standard in the mediterranean area well before JC came on the scene, judging from the love of a humungous gathering on the part of italians & greeks.

I suspect the ground rules for marriage were established well before Moses started making his decrees about divorce. Note that the egyptians had an advanced society around 5000 years ago. That said, Moses would certainly have had a lot to say about marriage, and would have had a major influence on hebrew, and ultimately jewish & islamic traditions.

Marriage is not a private contract it is a State registered contract.

What I want to know Kevin Rudd, if you are in Government and Homosexual marriage becomes law; will you also have a register of defacto gay relationships of persons of the same sex who live together for a period of six months? At least you might save on Centerlink payments and will agravate those who do not want to be registered with the State.