Yes, and moreover, offer a conscience vote to the coalition, to give the same rights to Australians in Australia!
I mean, just how ludicrous would it be, to recognize same sex marriages performed here, in foreign embassies, and still withhold exactly the same right on our own soil.
And there are enough States with their hand up, looking for just such reform, and on their territory!
I mean, the current stance would look so silly, if sexual orientation, had any element of choice in it, instead of being, just another normal aberration, over which, none have any control over, whatsoever. No ifs buts or maybes!
And people with a medical background should know this same fact better than anyone! Unless of course, they are the very worse kind of incorrigible bigots!
I mean, does any heterosexual think, that they, while still in the womb, chose to be straight?
Or left-handed, or born with a club foot etc/etc?
Only the most ignorant flat earthers could believe different!
Time to end this final area of perverse unjustifiable discrimination!
And given freedom to choose is a right, rather than a privilege, any church or church elder remains free to refuse to perform such service.
Therefore, what right do they then have, to try and force their personal bigotry, down any other throat!
There was a time when similarly ignorant people argued that slavery was justified, given it said so in the bible; (which bible, who's bible) or that blacks had the mark of Cain on them, and therefore were no better than beasts of the field!
I mean, religious bigotry has a very long and entrenched history, with some devotees, unable to give up their flat earth, stone age beliefs, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary!
Rhrosty.

Australia, and by this the author means the Australian Government, should not legally recognise any marriage. A marriage does not need to be legally recognised. There are absolutely no benefits in relation to the government that require a marriage certificate. It is not a matter of human rights at all. No one has a human right to have a marriage certificate. It may be something they would like but it is not a right. The fact that some people already have a legal marriage certificate does not mean that it is a right.

The distribution of legal marriage certificates has been carried out by the government for reasons best known to itself. None of these reasons are defensible. As the homosexual lobby are keen to tell us it is time to usher in the 21st century when it comes to relationships and this should include questioning government involvement in those relationships.

Homosexual people clamouring for government involvement do not want to question government involvement in marriage because they want that involvement. They want it, not because there are good reasons for having it, but because they need someone with the authority of the government to declare that homosexuality is in every way equal to heterosexuality. They need to appeal to ‘authority’ because they are simply not secure enough to be able to stand on their own two feet and ignore any arguments which threaten that security or present good reasons why it should be acknowledged as equal.

No amount of ‘authority’ will ever appease someone who is insecure about something for which they have no reason to feel insecure about. Dragging in the government and wasting taxpayers’ money to try and shore up your own personal insecurities is a desperate measure. It also is no guarantee of anything. If same-sex marriage became law it would simply mean that it was reasonable in the eyes of the government. The government once thought it reasonable to deny the vote to Aboriginal people on the basis of their skin colour.

It is simply lying to say that gay marriage is not "allowed" or is not "legalised".

Gays have the same right to marry - to exchange solemn commitments - as heterosexual couples. They also have all the same substantive rights attaching thereto.

What they don't have, is the ability to get that relationship registered by the government.

This fact invalidates the author's entire argument. Being a professional intellectual specialising in this area, she cannot plead ignorance. This is a case of deliberate dishonesty, folks. Paula is lying and she knows it.

We have seen in here that the advocates of so-called gay marriage just go quiet and slink off when challenged to defend their own arguments.

What they refuse to answer is:
1. why government should be in the business of registering people's sexual relationships in the first place?
2. why should some forms of sexuality and not others be thus recognised, or privileged, or marginalised?
3. why they don't support marriage equality for polyamorous and every other form of human sexuality without any discrimination whatsoever?

Polyamorous marriage is really illegal - literally a criminal offence under the Crimes Acts - and the crime is the mere exchange of vows - a speech crime, a thought crime, unlike the situation for gays,.

Furthermore, unlike gays, there is a substantive legal disability on polyamorous which disables them from making binding marriage settlements.

So why aren't you more concerned about that, Paula? *Real* human rights violations, not fashionable fake ones.

Answer the questions.

@ Jardine K. Jardine

The bottom line is that we gay people want exactly the same rights and opportunities as the average heterosexual person, or heterosexual couple. We gay people don't really consider our selves any different to heterosexual people, apart from the fact that we are sexually, emotionally and physically attracted to the same sex. Just as a heterosexual person is sexually attracted to the opposite sex. Also accusing people of "lying" simply because you don't agree with them is not constructive. Some people will never ever understand homosexuality, and thats fine by me.

My heterosexual partner and I were happily unmarried for 21 years until her untimely death. Our union was recognised by Centrelink. As I understand it, the same priveledges are also afforded to unmarried couples of homosexual persuasion. Why is there therefore this great urge to be legally married? If two people of whatever sexual persuasion wish to make vows of commitment to one another it should not be the business of the state to regulate it.

David

@ VK3AUU

There is a difference in law between defacto-spouse and defacto-partner.

The fundamental issue is simple: if a group of people (or even one person) wants to do something which does no harm to anyone else, they should be allowed to do so. Thus far nobody has given any remotely credible reasons why allowing gay marriage will disadvantage anyone in any way, so if we value the principles behind an open, civilised society, we should be letting it happen. What it's all 'about', and who's involved, and why the issue has arisen in the first place is all completely immaterial -- as is, of course, the opinions of any real or imagined deity on the matter.

Simple answer,No!

jason84
I didn't say Paula was lying 'simply because I don't agree with her'.

I said she’s lying because it's NOT TRUE that gays can't marry, or "aren't allowed" to marry, or it's "illegal" for gays to marry, and she knows it. She’s paid to profess the truth, and she’s spreading lies and propaganda, and when challenged to defend it, she goes quiet.

Homosexuality for hundred and thousands of years, was criminalized as a sexual perversion. The gay movement has rightly fought for an end to the persecution.

But unlike the fake human rights of SSM – there’s no such thing as a “human right” to have one’s sexual relationship registered by government – there are REAL human rights issues affecting more marginalized sexualities, which should have more urgency and priority than *registering* SSM.

Freedom of expression and association are *real* human rights, and if Paula was doing her job properly she would know that.

For example, unlike gays who have complete freedom and equality to marry by exchanging solemn commitments, for polyamorous people, the very act of uttering the vows is a criminal offence.

“There is a difference in law between defacto-spouse and defacto-partner.”

I don’t think there is. What is it?

Jon J
The fundamental issue is simple: if a group of people (or even one person) wants to do something which does no harm to anyone else, they should be allowed to do so.”

That's an argument to repeal the laws on polygamy and age of consent; not to register same-sex marriages.

“ Thus far nobody has given any remotely credible reasons why allowing gay marriage will disadvantage anyone in any way, so ... we should be letting it happen.”
Your argument rests on the false premise that gay marriage is not “allowed” or is not “let happen”. This is factually false. Once we take account of the actual facts: gays have the same right to marry as heterosexuals - in fact more, because multiple marriages are legal for homosexuals but not heterosexuals – the entire argument for so-called SSM collapses.

Jon J – It is no true to say no one is hurt by the same-sex marriage issue. If it is not the government’s business to be involved in legalising marriage then all taxpayers are being hurt. How much does it cost the country to administer marriages? If the government is involved then a bureaucracy needs to be established and this costs a great deal of money. If it is wrong to waste taxpayers’ funds on heterosexual relationships then adding homosexual relationships only makes a bad situation worse. What if that money could build a new hospital? What is more important to people clamouring for government involvement in their relationships? What are their real values? Where is their integrity as human beings?

There have also been huge amounts of wasted money spent on the discussion of this topic. How much time has been wasted by politicians (whose wages we all pay) in debating this issue? How much time wasted in entertaining lobbyists? How much money does a Senate Enquiry cost the public and for what? Having a piece of paper that says the government considers you to be married cannot be that important. If homosexual people show such a poor sense of what is important and valuable to human beings then they run the risk of being alienated. People who show such a disregard for what is important deserve to be alienated. Perhaps so much of the homophobia they claim is not homophobia at all but a genuine dislike of their sense of values.

Paula Gerber,
Isn't it somewhat strange that none of the smart population countries are included in your listing ?

@ individual

Theres no such thing as "smart population countries".

Q. Should Australia recognise same sex marriages performed overseas?

A. No.

Q. Should Australia recognise marriages between men and child brides performed overseas?

A. No.

Q. Should Australia recognise incestuous marriages performed overseas"

A. No.

Q. Should Australia recognise polygamous marriages performed overseas?

A. No.