"False premise; invalid conclusion."

Okay... you do realise from the paragraph following that statement we (not merely one) can conclude:

"All one can conclude is that the origin of opposite-sex attraction is multi-factorial, with predisposing and precipitating factors; it is not a mere “choice” but nor is it innate and immutable, as many former heterosexuals can attest."

But there is only one way for you to be taken seriously...

Campaign stridently for the total abolition of divorce (no shortage of scriptural support) including its reversion if a child's mother and father are still alive:

"If marriage is fundamentally about the needs of children and their right, where possible, to be raised by both a mother and a father, a principled party will defend that as policy."

So would a principled GP.

Meanwhile this essay gives a completely different Understanding of this topic. An understanding compatible within a free democratic pluralistic country. And the website on which it is featured gives a much more humorous Understanding of the all important emotional-sexual dimensions of our existence-being:
http://www.adidaupclose.org/Crazy_Wisdom/freedomofchoice.html
Plus Sex Laughter & God-Realization.
http://www.adidam.org/Content/teaching/print-files/sex-laughter-god-realization.pdf

The author wrote: “Changing the definition of marriage, which has lasted from time immemorial, is not an exercise in human rights and equality; it is an exercise in de-authorising the Judaeo-Christian influence in our society.”

The above sentence is nonsense. 'Time immemorial' includes the Bible. Jacob was married to Leah and Rachel. King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. The Judaeo-Christian influence includes the Bible. The statement is demonstrably untrue even if Australia were a Christian theocracy. However, Australia does not have any official religion, and worldwide customs can be taken into account since Australia is a pluralist society.

In some Muslim countries a man can have as many as four wives. In Tibet until recently a woman could have many husbands. Among North American Indian tribes there was the berdache. A berdache was a male who assumed the female role in every respect including that of marriage to a man.

To use the words 'time immemorial' to refer to a particular marital arrangement which has never been universal shows a lamentable ignorance. Of course one need not concern oneself with facts when asserting the 'eternal' truths of religion.

Davidf
Kinda, Australia has three official religions who all hold the same beliefs, Judeo Christianity, Judeo Islam and Judaism proper the constitution merely prohibits the state from establishing any religion.
I'd also take issue with the term pluralistic in this context.
Try looking at Gay marriage from a different perspective, think of it more as a forced conversion of a heathen tribe than a capitulation by the state and an affront to Christain "morality".
The Roman church said the most appalling things about the Germanic "Barbarians" but they converted them anyway and even allowed the northern tribes to keep some of their eccentric cultural artifacts, Halloween being an obvious example.
Christian morals and tradition are malleable, Sub Saharan Africa's practitioners of "Christian Animism" (Voodoo for those not in the know) are treated with respect by Western Christians, homosexual behavior is easily assimilable compared to animal sacrifice, ecstatic trances and the summoning of nature spirits.

If the Christian lobby believe that their view is the majority view, then let them advocate for a referendum! Bring it on!
Rhrosty.

A “Great” article drawing equally “Great” conclusions…!

Daffy Duck, where would you be if you could not dig out from Google some web link that supports your ideological viewpoint?

Rhosty: If the Christian lobby believe that their view is the majority view, then let them advocate for a referendum! Bring it on!

It is ironic that the gay lobby asserts that the majority of Australians support SSM, but then vehemently opposes any suggestion of holding a national referendum on the question.

>>Nine ACT politicians voted last week to legalise homosexual marriage on behalf of all Australians.<<

No they didn't. They are ACT parliamentarians so they voted on behalf of all Australian Capital Territorians. The ACT is home to about 1.6% of Australia's population. Under what novel mathematical theory does 1.6% = 100% ?

>>Its policy “affirms the fundamental right and deep emotional need of a child to have both a mother and a father; notes that same-sex marriage makes it impossible for children to have both a mother and a father; and therefore opposes the legislation of same-sex marriage.”<<

But the kids in single-parent families can get stuffed apparently. Obviously they don't need a mother and father or the QLD LNP would have policy that “affirms the fundamental right and deep emotional need of a child to have both a mother and a father; notes that single-parent custody makes it impossible for children to have both a mother and a father; and therefore opposes legislation allowing single-parent custody.” But they don't. And it's pretty obvious why: opponents of gay marriage aren't really concerned about children being motherless or fatherless. They're only concerned if children have twice as many mothers or fathers as other kids.

>>The constitutional larrikinism of Territories and States meddling with marriage needs to be quashed by the High Court.<<

It’s not ‘larrikinism’: under the Constitution marriage is a shared responsibility between the feds and the states and territories. Up until 1961 there were no federal marriage laws: marriage was governed solely by the states. The states and territories can enact a same-sex marriage law. The Constitutional question is whether such a law is inconsistent with the federal Marriage Act.

>>But beyond that, such a radical reordering of society would demand the ultimate democratic authority of a referendum.<<

A referendum on gay marriage is like a pet elephant or your own personal howitzer - it doesn't matter how badly you want it: in Australia you can't legally have it. Referendums are only held – and under the Constitution CAN ONLY BE HELD – for changes to the Constitution. Amendments to the marriage act are statutory changes: they occur by act of parliament. In order to hold a referendum on gay marriage you would first have to have a referendum to change the Constitution – either to allow referendums on non-constitutional matters, or to make gay marriage a constitutional matter instead of a statutory one. I don't think there's much chance a referendum like that would pass – historically referendums have a tendency to fail and I think Australians on the whole would be cautious about tinkering with their Constitution when it really isn't necessary.

You can have a plebiscite on gay marriage: a plebiscite is like a referendum but they're easier to pass and the result isn't legally binding. A government that ignored the result of a plebiscite would not impress the voters but other than that there's nothing stopping them from doing exactly that. Any changes introduced in response to a plebiscite would be normal statutory changes wrought through normal parliamentary procedures – changes which could be easily repealed by a new government without having to hold further plebiscites. Essentially a plebiscite is just a comprehensive opinion poll of the entire nation, but any government that can't accurately gauge public opinion without having to hold plebiscites on everything isn't worth its salt.

>> but then vehemently opposes any suggestion of holding a national referendum on the question.<<

Are you sure they ‘vehemently oppose’ a referendum? Or do you think it's possible that they paid enough attention to their civics lessons to know that a referendum is impossible as the Constitution is currently constituted?

Cheers,

Tony

As it is common knowledge that the majority of Australians favour same sex marriage then let there be a referendum.

What could homosexuals have to fear about a referendum?

>>As it is common knowledge that the majority of Australians favour same sex marriage then let there be a referendum.<<

Wow... what can you do but shake your head?

Cheers,

Tony

Can someone please tell me why the government should be registering people's private sexual relationships?

Also if the gays are really motivated by a desire for marriage equality, how come they aren't equally arguing for marriage equality of all those other categories of love and sexuality who are currently unable to register their relationships as marriages?

Wm Trevor

If we truly think that marriage exists for the sake of raising children, and only for that purpose, it is not enough to forbid parents from divorcing. We should also require unmarried parents to wed (in these days of DNA testing “it’s not mine” is no excuse, yet about a third of children nowadays are born “out of wedlock”, as they used to say) and revoke marriage certificates when wives pass childbearing age without breeding.

Or … we can recognise that marriage never was, and certainly is not now, only about raising children.

David f has skewered the Judeo-Christian fallacy quite nicely.

On the issue of whether people are “born” homosexual, it is not necessary to point to proof of a hormonal or genetic cause to claim that sexual orientation is inherent. Science cannot explain why I am left-handed, but I was most certainly “born that way”. Most importantly, it is now clear that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice or repairable deviation from the “normal” that can be rectified by remedial measures as might be the case with a cleft palate or club foot. It is intrinsic to someone’s personhood and identity, and to try to “correct” it is as great a perversion as trying to make a straight person gay

Tony,

Don't shake your head to much as it can be a bit dangerous.
I know that the majority of Australians favour the allowing of same sex marriages because the Greens, among others, have made such a claim and it would never do to doubt them, would it?

What's to fear about asking the people?

The author claim,s that the children of married homosexuals would not have both a mother and a father. Seems he needs a biology lesson. They must have one of each. Whether or not one of those people is a part of the childs life also is not related to marriage. My sister is a lesbian in a long term committed relationship. She has two children. These children, fathered by a homosexual man spend every weekend with their father and his partner. They most certainly have a mother and a father. In fact they have two mothers and two fathers.
The author fails to mention how preventing a homosexual couple from getting married will ensure that any children they might produce will have both a mother and a father.
Its hard to imagine a pair of committed homosexuals saying "well we can't get married as gays, so we had better change ourselves into heterosexuals before we think about having any children."
In any case the vast majority of fatherless children are born to heterosexual women. I think the author is simply dressing up his distaste for homosexuality as concern for child welfare, when in fact he has no such concern.

Is that going to be the new standard that any new idea has to have a super majority in all states to pass?

Would womens rights have got that level of support? there are still many Christ-stains who oppose treating women as equals.

God bothers have nothing to offer the modern world other than hate.

Dr van Gend’s “children’s” rights” ploy is far too weak to cover for the cult from which he seeks to resist the incoming tide of recognition of same-sex marriage. How many children are going to be born to same-sex couples, for heaven’s sake!

Dr van Gend made it quite clear what he was on about: defence of a dominant role for a variant of Christianity in Australia’s public life. It is noteworthy that he put forward as “wise[r]” John Howard’s view that this dominant role is only common sense. That is the same “Christian” who treacherously ignored the Commandment against bearing false witness in lying Australia into invasion of a sovereign country ( aggression, top of the list of war crimes) and admit later that his purpose was to cosy up to America’s Coalition of the Lying.

It is not surprising that Dr van Gend echoed the public performance of Pastor Matt Prater (whose bigotry was written all over his face) to insult the Prime Minister, and all homosexual people, and all people who are not homosexual but have the decency not to insult or discriminate against others because they are. Prater’s theocratic diatribe (to which Dr van Gend incautiously supplied a hyperlink) was a repudiation of our species' millennia of struggle to evolve into creatures of reason in the teeth of the likes of van Gend and Prater who have throughout recorded history coerced acceptance of their faith-based diktat.

The marriage equality struggle is not one for the right to same sex relationships: that has already long been achieved. It is asking the nation to be prepared to recognise these relationships in the same way that we recognise heterosexual relationships. Such recognition confined to a single state or territory might well clash with the Constitution and would be of little value: the most likely ultimate outcome would have to be recognition throughout Australia or none until a nationwide change gained acceptance.

Children in many places of the world are scarred by the traumas of war. They may suffer horrific injuries, see their friends blown up, lose one or both parents, go hungry, be denied schooling etc. It seems odd to worry about the fate of children cared by two people of the same sex who may love them dearly while other children are traumatised by war, go hungry, are exploited sexually, have one or both parents missing etc. The author's worry can be spelled out in five capital letters - PHONY!

Hi EmperorJulian

Those who purport to speak in the name of Christianity on this issue do not represent all Christians. There are many Christians – me included – who support gay rights and marriage equality.

I’m an Anglican in the diocese of Perth. At our recent synod, significant majorities of both lay representatives and clergy voted for a motion recognising same-sex civil unions, for the second year running. Unfortunately the Archbishop decided not to accept this, again for a second year, but the sentiment of the majority was clear.

http://qnews.com.au/article/perth-anglican-archbishop-herft-stands-firm-against-his-flock

There is no single Christian view on this issue, and I find it rather offensive when some opponents of marriage equality infer that theirs is the only “Christian” perspective.

>>Don't shake your head to much as it can be a bit dangerous.<<

I don't. Head-shaking is a physical expression I reserve to express heartfelt despair in my fellow man. In the face of regular garden variety idiocy I become amused, irritated, bemused, sarcastic or bored.

It is only when tormented by wilful ignorance with malice aforethought - like you've exhibited - that I despair so much for my fellow man that I can only shake my head in dismay. Thankfully that isn't too often. Life would get very depressing if I had to constantly cope with the sort of disappointment you've caused me.

>>What's to fear about asking the people?<<

Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

But you can't ask them with a referendum anymore than you can have your howitzer. And if the government needs to hold a plebiscite - and they aren't cheap - to gauge public opinion then they aren't a very good government, are they? Governments don't usually cost the taxpayers a smegload - the approximate cost of a plebiscite - to get the public's opinions on policy decisions: they make informed choices and risk the displeasure of the public come polling day. I would be very unimpressed with any government who thought that frivolous expense of a plebiscite was preferable to listening to their voters like they've always been content to in the past.

Cheers,

Tony

PM Tony Abbott is the sole reason why Australians wont get to vote in a national referendum on marriage equality. Because Tony Abbott is so worried that gay marriage will be legalised in Australia, he wont let the nation vote in support or against gay marriage. The more that Tony Abbott continues to pretend that gay marriage is not an issue, the bigger an issue gay marriage will become. As a result it will become harder for people to defend traditional heterosexual only marriage, as more than 60 per cent of Australians support same-sex marriage.

Here's a summary of the article:

Kevin Rudd came out in support of gay marriage.
Kevin Rudd was an idiot.
Therefore, gay marriage is wrong.

The premises are correct but the conclusion doesn't follow. Even an idiot can be right now and then.

let's see what this link will stir up,

http://www.mamamia.com.au/election2013/the-most-vile-use-of-a-child-in-political-advertising-weve-ever-seen/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-most-vile-use-of-a-child-in-political-advertising-weve-ever-seen&utm_source=Taboola&utm_medium=CPC&utm_content=Lead+Posts&utm_campaign=Lead

Tony,

Don't confuse people by using the term 'plebiscite', most people use the incorrect term 'referendum' for all occasions when a question is put to the people; the cost is not much when held in conjunction with an election.
There is extra ink and cheap paper and a stroke or two of pencil lead but the staff and all the necessary gear are in place and the premises have been arranged.
So no big problem in terms of expense at all.

A vote by the people is real democracy at work and this question could be easily solved by such a vote.

What's to fear?

What's to fear?
is Mise.
what's to fear ? A hell of a lot of hangers-on jobs, that's what !

Rhian states that those who purport to speak in the name of Christianity do not represent all Christians. I’d agree and argue that many - including entire cults - who purport to speak in the name of Christianity do not represent ANY Christians. That includes Dr van Gend, and that freak who disgraced himself at the Q&A session, and Tony Abbott and his mentor George Pell. From the fourth century day that Christians agreed to pin a tyrannical tail on themselves they severed their link with Christianity and started to wag. Only those who jumped organisational/ideological ship were able to escape the wagging of the ancient authoritarian tail and rediscover the road to Christianity. Those that didn’t are still wagging.

As for “gay marriage” it is up to the nation, not this or that superstitious cult, to decide whether to include under the embrace of the term “marriage” personal unions that are not linked to sexual reproduction. Already, provided the partners are of different gender their commitment to one another can be registered as marriage whether it is able to be procreative or not. The “different gender” proviso doesn’t make real sense, many couples are hurt by it and it might as well be abandoned. Another decade or so and it will be gone and heterosexual married couples who are dinkum about their mutual commitment will have lost nothing. Those who feel threatened by it are phoneys

...Gay-rights are a total distraction from the real and “meaningful” left-wing issue of women work and family. Marriage equality preached from the gay lobby over recent years has effectively quashed the broader and urgent issue of equality of women in our society.

...The gay-rights movement has irreprebably damaged the credibility of the ALP in the eyes of the electorate over this, a nonsense issue; has ridden on the back of the environmental party of the greens, and inflicted the same damage to Greens credibility in the process. The dishonesty of Bob Brown ,the leader of a once credible environmental party, is reprehensible, destructive and treacherous.

...Maybe in time, following the decomposition of the Greens and the ALP, sense will again be maintained, but not until the grass roots issues applicable to the both parties are once more given their rightful place in the political debate.

...Abbott is on a winner with a stance against gay-rights and its followers

...Further:

...If I had the privilege of five minutes in Tony Abbott’s ear, I would be arguing for the “Decomposition” of the ABC. I notice the ABC now proudly lauding the arrival of a leading poofter from the USA in time for this week’s Q&A.

...Needless to say, the night will be stacked against conservative protest…any bets!

@ diver dan

So let me guess, your happy for Fred Nile to be on Q&A, but not a 'poofer' from the USA? You have just been exposed as somebody who is against free speech.

A number of comments seem to think that marriage is a religious or explicitly Christian institution. That is very ignorant.

Marriage is evident in every society from earliest history (with rare aberrations that prove the rule) independent of the Judaeo-Christian tradition. Ancient legal codes of Hammurabi in Babylon around 1750 BC, or King Dadusha in the same region a century earlier, elaborate social conditions for valid marriage similar to our own. For example, King Dadusha's specification of the need for a formal contract and public ceremony as well as obtaining consent from the in-laws is much the same as ours. If Dadusha could have attended the royal Wedding he would have understood the Bishop of London’s three-point rationale, dating from 1662, for the institution of marriage:
"First, it was ordained for the increase of mankind... Secondly, it was ordained in order that the natural instincts and affections should be hallowed and directed aright... Thirdly, it was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort that the one ought to have of the other."

Note that the basic rationale is anthropological, offering nothing theological other than the word “hallowed”. And even to the theologically indifferent there is something about marriage that can hallow, or sublimate, our simple mammalian needs into an honourable and ineffable thing. Anthropology and ancient common sense understand that marriage exists to nurture a new generation, to discipline the feral instincts of males to constructive ends, and to be what John Locke called “the First Society”. Throughout history, until about 5 minutes ago in the decadent West, "homosexual marriage" has been an incoherent concept. And it still is.

jason84:

No, not against free speech so much as against the ABC lining up a bunch of "Milk-Sops" for a debate that will concentrate primarily on gay marriage, nicely supported by an audience of homosexuals on a mission, and served-up as open debate; but in reality will be "staged" support, and follow the official views of the ABC as it continually throws its hand in on the side of free-range homosexuality.

@ diver dan

Well if your against Q&A on ABC having a debate on gay marriage then your against free speech pure and simple. Now why don't you have a rant and complain that Fred Nile was on Q&A? Come on...

@ David van Gend

Its Australia 2013, not Babylon 1750 BC.

@ Jason84

Get real. Marriage is not a fad, not something society creates; it is something society recognises in nature and reinforces with all our laws and customs, for the sake of social stability and for the sake of any child that is created. We are as much mammals now as we were in 1750BC; the pair bond of male and female is as much a reality now as it was then, and the human trinity of mother-father-child remains "the natural and fundamental group unit of society" as per the UNDHR as much now as then.

You must be a Green supporter to be so out of touch with nature.

To David van Gend:

How does a same-sex couple go about creating a child?

@ David van Gend

Maybe I support the Greens, Maybe I support the ALP, Maybe I support the Liberals. It's absolutely none of your business which political party I choose to support. Get real.

Its Australia 2013, not Babylon 1750 BC.
Jason84,
I think the babylonians could teach the (P)ockers a thing or two.

If you go to google.com and type in: David van Gend, There is literally hundreds and hundreds of homosexuality opinions written by him on various websites. Same-sex marriage is not the real issue for Dr David van Gend. Im certainly glad he is not my doctor, as he obviously has an issue which is much bigger than gay marriage.

What gets me with the Gays is that they insist to be recognised as different yet they want OUR word marriage. If they are different then they should come up with a different word as well. Leave the word marriage for the man/woman society & there won't be any more bitching.
Get on with your lives & leave us to ours.

Individual, we live in a democracy, and the word marriage does not belong to you or anybody.
You may dislike gay people, but they contribute to your pension and entitled to the same rights that you enjoy

Kipp,
surely you can do better than that. I pay taxes too to pay for the treatment of their infections.. This is not about responsibility it's about genetic ethics. Also, I don't dislike them, that's your invention based on nothing. Democracy means or rather should mean majority agreement. The majority do not support gay marriage in the traditional sense. In the non-traditional sense no-one would give a hoot if two males or two females decide to join up for life but do not call it marriage. Tha's all there's to it. Let's have a referendum & we'll see. I go with what the majority goes with but I won't approve of it. It's not something I deliberately object to, it simply is unnatural to me. There are a lot of behaviours we all would like to exercise but a sense of control prohibits most of us to act out those urges. Too many gays do not simply accept their condition & live their lives as normal citizens outside the home. I know several gay men in relationships & we have laughs & share a beer. They do not flaunt or promote their condition as far too many do.

Thanks David VG for an entertaining and well reasoned article. It's the sort of thing you don't often find in the mainstream papers. It's the reason I keep coming back to OLO.

David f,
Interesting discussion on the universality of marriage. I think it should be noted that the words you've ascribed to the author were actually him quoting somebody else. His point was the gay lobby's quest towards the normalising of homosexual behaviour in society. 

...Far, far too much pro gay content on the ABC. EG today...Turn on telly @ 6am to hear the news on News 24...Two pro homosexual interviews took the slot between 6am and 7am.
Return home tonight, turn on telly to watch ABC news 24 and they are at it again. Pro homosexual doco on homosexuality in Russia.

...Abbott needs to sell this lot off pronto IMO.

Diver Dan,
The political party which offers to either ditch or privatise the ABC gets my vote instantly.

Abbott needs to sell this lot off pronto IMO.

Diver Dan,
Dan S de Merengue,
Ditto, let's get the show rolling.

...Yep. And in the interim awaiting the sell-off, a political cleansing of the ABC management urgently!

Dream on guys, your beloved Tony Abbott has ruled out selling/privatising ABC and SBS. Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/23/abbott-rules-out-selling-abc

@ Individual

HAHAHA, Realistically there is absolutely NOTHING you can do to stop gay people from being a normal human being. Oh and good luck on trying to convince the entire planet on your personal definition of "normal". So keep on ranting and raving on this website, because your certainly going to achieve a lot. You should just sit at home all day writing memos to yourself.

@ Dan S de Merengue

Ok, lets have a close look at the heterosexual lifestyle…..

Jason84, you'd better go & have a lie-down with Jason 85. Don't forget the soap & air freshener.

stop gay people from being a normal human being.
Jason84,
Normal people don't do what Gays do. So, no-one has to stop gay people from being normal because they aren't. We can't even try to convince them to become normal what with their preferences ? I suppose we could make public toilets less attractive.

...Mmmm; where's all this goi'n...? I vote we turn the ABC into a franchise of toilets for Gays...

Jason,
Perhaps your colleagues at the GayBC can be thankful there isn't citizen initiated referendum in this country. I don't think our national broadcaster would stand up well if it came up against a popular vote. 

The author of the article proposes a referendum for law reform on the definition of marriage. Would you be for such a proposal?

Dan S d M bring on a referendum, and you yourself will be very surprised at the result.

Kipp,
the ABC would be history if there were a referendum. Ordinary people are sick & tired of seeing their tax dollars so wasted on that outfit.