In early esoteric Christianity, marriages were not performed in church, but rather in the home of the bride or groom.
The first reported miracle, was the changing of water into wine, in just one such ceremony?
In fact, the church's intrusion into this area, to further entrench its control of its devotees, is only centuries old, and strictly man made.
Many argue that Christ was gay, with his preference for male companions, and his bachelor status at such a late age in his community, where Children could be betrothed as prepubescent juveniles?
If the master was to walk amongst us today, he would inquire of the opposition to true equality, what's your problem, it's your creation not mine; and, I have no commandment forbidding it!
Did you not notice my preferred company when I last walked on the earth, was tavern keepers, whores and drunkards!
And that I had absolutely no interest in the sexual preferences or orientation of others!
That I loved them equally!
That that was the inherent message, from the sermon on the mount; or that of the good Samaritan, or the do unto others message, as you would be done unto!
The my only interest was and remains the saving of souls, not building massive edifices or hoarding treasure; or, making brand new man made laws, which have nothing whatsoever to do with the spirit!
At the end of the day we will all face final judgement, including those who have sort to speak for God, without ever once being actually asked!
Who might well thunder, who gave you mortal, the right to speak or judge in my name!?
To misrepresent ourselves as someone else, is called fraud and uttering/identify theft. There are severe penalties for that!
So, what would be an appropriate penalty for the identify theft of God?
Internal voices are not evidence of any such request, just severe mental illness?
Incidentally, voices coming out of thin air can be very disconcerting, even more so, when you actually understand what they're saying!
Rhrosty.

While the author insinuates discrimination, none exists. That is the view of the Human Rights Commission that acts on briefs and law drafted and enacted by the 'Progressives' who now falsely claim denial of 'rights'. It was the strongly held view of the Gillard government where Nicola Roxon, federal Attorney General and the PM Gillard were both emphatic that they had dispelled any discrimination against homosexuals forever through numerous law changes.

Much of the valuable time of the previous Parliament was wasted on homosexual marriage. The Greens, who continually disrupted Parliament with all manner of tricks to force 'gay marriage' into debates and embarrass the government, the Gillard government especially, will not accept the democratic decision, made many times.

For their efforts, the Greens Watermelon Party is now at a very low ebb from the decision of the people. Hopefully it will drift to the bottom of the ocean soon. The Greens Watermelons will not be mourned.

However it is regrettable that the original Greens who were concerned about the environment were long ago displaced by Trotskyists, Marxists that are there now, interfering with social change and making fools of themselves picketing honest shop owners over Middle East politics while their try to earn their living.

It is interesting but sad that the Greens Watermelons and political 'Progressives' continue to have 'same sex' marriage as their priority when there are so many pressing matters before Parliament. Maybe if they all got real jobs.

You're right Onthebeach.

Why doesn't this Government just legalise Gay marriage and be done with it?
The sky won't fall in, and then they can concentrate on more important matters...

I, for one, am over it all!

Yeah Suse, then the 3000-5000 homosexuals who want to try out being legally married for a few months of their lives before finding a new partner can have their little adventure.
Bring it on, I'm a morbid sort of person I'm actually really excited about spending my twilight years in observer status upon the dystopian freak show that lies ahead, it'll be like a cross between the Tenderloin of 1860's Manhattan and Blade Runner!

Well, Jay, why not just move to one of the fifteen countries where gay marriage is legal? Then you can sit back and enjoy the 'dystopian freak show' as much as you like. Of course. you'll have to use your imagination quite a lot to find anything remotely unusual or tittilating about it all, but judging from your posts here I think you've had plenty of practice at that.

The Australian Federal "Marriage Act" clearly defines "marriage" as a union between males and females. In order to change that, there must be a referendum which the homosexual lobby knows it will lose.

Homosexual lawyers are claiming that the word "marriage" in the Marriage Act can be redefined to conform to what they want, thereby side stepping the Australian Constitution. Constitutional lawyers know that doing that would endanger the entire Constitution. Constitutions in every country are written using words who's meanings were defined at the time of writing. Changing constitutions by redefining words would be extremely dangerous for political stability.

"Freedom of Speech" could be redefined as "whatever the government thinks is appropriate." "Freedom of Assembly" could be redefined as "Assembling with government permission." Secular Government could be redefined as "governments approved by the church." The list is endless.

It is not illegal in Australia to drink urine, and believe it or not, among "social progressives" in the 1950's it was once all the rage to drink their own urine. This was because the blessed Mahatma Ghandi drank his own urine and the luvvies thought that he was wonderful, so they copied him and bragged about how enlightened they were.

Now drinking urine and homosexuality are similar concepts. If you want to drink your own urine or engage in homosexuality, then do so in private. Because if you do it in public and seek my approval for it, you are not going to get it. What you do in private is your business. But I will not approve of it, I will despise the practitioners of it who want to normalise it, and I will discriminate against them as I would towards any one else who's behaviour I disapproved of.

"The Australian Federal "Marriage Act" clearly defines "marriage" as a union between males and females. In order to change that, there must be a referendum which the homosexual lobby knows it will lose."

LEGO, do you understand how government and the Constitution work in Australia? Legislation DOES NOT require a referendum to be changed. An act of parliament changes legislation. Referendums (nationally) are used to alter the constitution. If you don't understand the issues then your place in the debate is irrelevant.

Dear Minotaur.

The reason why the ACT legislation legalising homosexual "marriage" is in trouble is because the Federal government has taken issue with the fact that it is contrary to the federal "Marriage Act". Federal law over rides territory law and the only way to change that is by changing the Australian Constitution through referendum, which the homosexual lobby knows it would lose.

The homosexual lobby knows that Australians do not want homosexual "marriage."

As a liberal person I agreed in the 70's that homosexual behaviour should not be illegal. But that did not mean it was socially approved behaviour which granted them equal rights. If homosexuals want equality and the right to sodomise our society, then as far as I am concerned, they should make homosexual behaviour illegal again.

LEGO, the High Court is yet to determine whether the ACT same-sex marriage legislation is not significantly different from the Federal Marriage Act and therefore unconstitutional. I have no idea what you are going on about when it comes to constitutional change being needed. You seem a bit confused.

You also seem confused about equality. Its quite simple really. A persons sexuality, the way they are born, should not disqualify them from being able to marry. The law has no place dictating to people because of sexuality...that is why laws criminalising homosexuality were wiped from the statute books.

minotaur, "A persons sexuality, the way they are born, should not disqualify them from being able to marry."

Presumably you would demand the same 'right' regarding age, viz., 'A persons age, they have no choice over it, should not disqualify them from being able to marry'.

Then again, the same argument can be put regarding the number or blend of partners, or even marrying a horse.

It isn't about 'rights', nor is it about 'discrimination'. The Human Rights Commission and the previous Labor/Greens government, the federal Attorney-General Nicola Roxon and e-PM Gillard, all held that there is no rights abuse and no discrimination, and they changed many laws to make it that way.

Are they all liars?

Just who is gay marriage for?
It is astounding that the reduction of the spectrum of possible homosexual relationships to a single option, defined and approved by the State is being sold to homosexuals, as their 'right' and a remedy for the 'discrimination' the Australian Human Rights Commission (and the previous Labor government) says doesn't exist anyhow.

One can see how that might suit suitcase lesbians with their U-Haul trailer stacked with their belongings ready for the second date, but it is diametrically opposed to all that homosexuals have previously stood for and regarded as their own, which is choice to form, make and break whatever relationships suit them and without some public bureaucrat or court ruling otherwise.

Gays have been sold a pup. Formalising it into the Marriage Act only puts reinforcing rods in to ensure there is no way back to your free-wheeling days of freedom. Trust the political 'Progressives' who always know what is best for you and pass laws for you to toe the line.

Marrying a horse? What an absurd thing to say...it destroys any credibility you were seeking. In case you hadn't noticed animals or inanimate objects cannot consent.

Not sure what human rights you are on about but the Australian Human Rights Commission disagrees with you and agrees not legalising same sex marriage is discrimination:

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/lesbian-gay-bisexual-trans-and-intersex-equality-0

As to marriage "only puts reinforcing rods in to ensure there is no way back to your free-wheeling days of freedom." Have you not heard of divorce?

I couldn't care less about the institution of marriage but if society wants it then stop the discrimination and let gay people get married. Although another way to stop the bickering is to just get rid of the archaic and unnecessary institution anyway.

minotaur,

Philosopher Peter Singer, father of animal liberation did not mention consent as an impediment when rationalising the sex with animals and nor do his 'progressive' followers, presumably.

Lets not deal in speculative stuff, just facts: if the Human Rights Commission had any discrimination case at all no matter how slight regarding homosexuals, it would be all over it like a fat kid with a packet of Smarties. Until then the Human Rights Commission should remember that it does not replace the Parliament but is responsible to it.

minotaur, "Have you not heard of divorce?"

You are not understanding the effect of inclusion of homosexuals under de facto provisions. They do not have choice, the status of their relationships is now decided by State bureaucrats (who can differ in particular cases, such is the ambiguity in the de facto definition!) and by courts. Coverage by the Marriage Act would put reinforcing rods through that, setting it in place forever.

How can your not see that gays have already lost rights and stand to lose more and for whom? Honestly now, we already know what they have lost, but what exactly do the substantial majority of gays actually gain out of this? Before they could form, change and cease relationships as they chose. Bust up and agree who brought what and who leaves with what. Very adult, easily done and worked well for countless years. Now bureaucrats and courts make those decisions for them, and gays pay large wads to lawyers.

How many homosexuals, gays especially, ever needed the State to regulate their relationships?

It is interesting minotaur that you are similar to most 'progressives' and gay activists who propose gay marriage in that you see it as an archaic and worthless institution, which probably is more of an inconvenience to you, somehow. You and they would trash the Marriage Act and the institution of marriage if allowed to do it.

It is absurd that you propose marriage for homosexuals while at the same time wishing it dead and buried. What does that say for your own credibility?

If the best you can do, otb, is attribute to me an argument I did not make than you are failing badly. Adding to that failure is your inability to tell the difference between a personal stance on an institution and standing up against discrimination.

You also brought in a completely separate topic; bestiality. The fact you resort to creating wholly different arguments does not reflect well upon you.

As the Buggery Act was still in force in 1901 it would take a very creative lawyer to argue that the word "marriage" in the Constitution includes homosexual marriage. Even if that could be done, the Federal Government can override all territory laws, so what has been gained? The only winners out of all of this will, as usual, be the lawyers. Personally, I am sick of the whole subject, but realise that at the moment the left has very little else to campaign about.

We can all relax, however. The logically insane verdicts that are repeatedly handed down from the High Court mean that anything can happen. The one I like best is that our Constitution is in force on the ships of a foreign country. Such is politics.

Plerdsus, the Federal Government cannot override legislation passed by the Territories. It used to be they could but the law changed and now the whole of parliament has to agree to such an action. Hence the High Court challenge by the coalition.

minotaur, "I couldn't care less about the institution of marriage .....just get rid of the archaic and unnecessary institution anyway"

It is unremarkable that you maintain you have no stake in gay marriage but you are in there advocating for it anyhow.

It is similarly not unusual, rather it is par for the course, that as an advocate for 'gay' marriage you are also irrevocably opposed to the institution of marriage and would undermine and wreck marriage if you could.

In another thread, there seem to be many on the subject, a poster mentioned the Gay Manifesto proclaimed by the homosexual activist Michael Swift in 1987 and originally published in Gay Community News, February 15-21, 1987. Gross stuff and still representative of the leading edge of gay activism it would appear.

http://www.blogwrath.com/gay-issues/the-gay-manifesto-a-chilling-prophecy-come-true/4590/

Homosexuals are around 2% of the population. In that case the number of extremist serial nuisances who are gay activists and are gay themselves must be very, very few indeed. Unless of course it is all media-led populism engineered by left 'progressives' who are hijacking homosexuals and manipulating policy affecting them for their own secondary gain.

Certainly the radical 'gay' activists in the media who say they are gay themselves are very few in number, with the bulk who push for gay marriage being the usual suspects who want to tear down their much hated 'patriarchal' marriage and 'traditional' society anyhow.

One constantly wonders what mainstream homosexuals who have always sought a quiet life of freedom away from State control think of the radical gay activists, the political 'Progressives' and other sundry statists with a secondary agenda to serve, who have forced State regulation and control of their relationships upon them against their will and want to go further.

Honestly now, how many homosexuals ever demanded that bureaucrats should be telling them when they are in a 'de facto relationship' or not, and that the family law court should make their decisions on separation for them? The lawyers are laughing and doing very well out of it, thank you very much.

Well, so much paranoia...and again you deliberately misrepresent my stance OTB. The link you provided was a pathetic attempt by someone to link homosexuality to pedophilia. If that is the level of your argument then it is only worthy of disdain.

minotaur,

Why do you propose marriage for gays when as you say yourself, you see nothing worthwhile in the institution of marriage and would trash it if you could?

You have a secondary agenda. You are another of the serial radical activists who have been hitching a ride on gay marriage while all the time white-anting marriage and trying to get rid of it.

Damn, OTB has uncovered my true agenda. Now, you'll have to excuse me while I go and find mini-me so we can keep plotting to rid society of that archaic and evil institution commonly known as 'marriage'.

You said it,

minotaur, "I couldn't care less about the institution of marriage .....just get rid of the archaic and unnecessary institution anyway"
(Posted by minotaur, Tuesday, 5 November 2013 11:39:07 AM)