There doesn't seem to be much dispute world-wide about what marriage is understood to be and as the fundamental building block of the family is seen as the gold standard for raising children.

"United for Human Rights (UHR) is an international, not-for-profit organization dedicated to implementing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at local, regional, national and international levels. Its membership is comprised of individuals, educators and groups throughout the world who are actively forwarding the knowledge and protection of human rights by and for all Mankind.

Its purpose is to provide human rights educational resources and activities that inform, assist and unite individuals, educators, organizations and governmental bodies in the dissemination and adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at every level of society.

United for Human Rights was founded on the Declaration’s 60th anniversary, in the face of continued worldwide abuses which violate the spirit, intent and Articles of this charter of all human rights, the first such document ever ratified by the community of nations. Surveys have found that most people have only a limited understanding of human rights. The Declaration contains the thirty rights that together form the basis of a civilization wherein all people can enjoy the freedoms to which they are entitled, and nations can coexist in peace."

and

"MARRIAGE AND FAMILY
Human Right # 16
Marriage and Family
1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."
http://www.humanrights.com/what-are-human-rights/videos/marriage-and-family.html

Gays already have the facility to enter into and publicise their relationships. 'Relationship' is also the chosen and preferred term and concept of the political progressives who are pushing same sex marriage, while being vehemently opposed to that institution. Figure that!

Dear Julian,

<<I'm puzzled about all the hoo-ha over recognition of same sex marriage.>>

Indeed, those who recognise such marriage will continue to do so and those who don't will continue not to. The problem is those who seek recognition for their private relationship from the devil, then the government uses the opportunity to buy their own recognition in return, a marriage from hell!

<<We should consider introducing democracy to Australia.>>

I support, as this would be a step in the right direction, but lets not stop there: the very idea as if it's OK for one person to rule over another, including a majority over minority (as in democracy), is flawed and immoral.

Killarney, you need to stop pretending “people want to twist my words into some gay-bashing diatribe”. You were gay bashing when you wrote “such an expensive referendum … at best symbolic and at worst empty of any purpose other than a feel-good factor..”. Like we’re a waste of space. You might as well have advocated for an in utero diagnostic test so we are all aborted and never get to suffer living.

David
Your numerical list hasn’t had a thorough rebuttal.
1) There is no state-based institutional monogamy and sex is not included nor required ever in the Marriage Act 1961. Sex, polyamory or not, should not change parenting responsibility.

2) Pure racism and religious supremacy – eg gunpowder, ink, silk, glass, pasta, the compass, papermaking, printing. Even our closest relatives the bonobo and chimpanzees have been inventing tools. Judeo-Christian beliefs were not unique inventions of control and bullying either and in stark contrast Buddhism was remarkably kind and compassionate for its era of invention.

3) The slippery slope to male sexual deprivation with no invention to stop them from climbing the walls in frustration? Well I think I could handle many more, perhaps another football team. I’m also qualified to teach about toys.

4) “The unique compact involved in traditional marriage is the undertaking by one party to make raising of children a first priority in the knowledge that the other party will merge financial and other resources…” Ouch! We invented a long time ago the concept of mutual obligation of parents towards their children which has nothing to do with gender or marriage and isn’t mentioned in the Marriage Act, just as having children or not is not mentioned. But marriage makes it easier to ensure men don’t neglect their children as way too many are.

David you might have the upgrades for atheism but your ideas on marriage are locked in the past on religious morality, they don’t represent today and are full of misogyny.

o sung wu another long brag about your past and an apology – thanks – but no re-cast of your bigoted claims.

//Let's face it, Mengele was an excellent doctor...//

He really wasn't, Craig. An excellent surgeon perhaps, but a failure as a doctor.

//It is axiomatic that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.//

No it isn't. An axiom is a premise so evident that it is accepted by everyone without controversy. If you really think there is no controversy over this premise then I pity the village that is currently missing its idiot.

Or maybe this forum is the village... in which case you can only be the apprentice idiot to runner.

ERIC G...

What precisely do mean by; '...my long brag about my past, and an apology...' I'll not accept any sort of rebuke from you pal ! Who in hell do you think you are ? The moral guardian of how we all should think ! Are we heterosexuals now mandated to 'tip toe' meekly around any reference to homosexuals, and their behaviour, if you think that mate, you've got another thing coming !

As a token of my own goodwill, I attempted to offer you a brief synopsis of the historical background concerning an entrenched belief system, held by some police back in the sixties, seventies and eighties ? And what do you do, respond sarcastically, and attempt to pitch it back in my face, like some immature smart arse!

It's little wonder why you personally have attracted so much derision and contempt, as you've (allegedly) claimed, as evidenced by your absurd petty confrontational attitude !

I'll not attempt to recount the number of occasions where I've placed my own physical welfare on the line, in order to safely extract some poor homosexual bloke, who was copping a real kickin' in the back toilets of a well known Gay pub, in Oxford Street Sydney !

For what it's worth, my blinkered, parochial friend, remember 'it takes two hands to clap' !

Onthebeach that was blatant lies:
"Gays already have the facility to enter into and publicise their relationships. 'Relationship' is also the chosen and preferred term and concept of the political progressives who are pushing same sex marriage, while being vehemently opposed to that institution. Figure that!"

Tip: if it sounds silly and downright daft, then you are more than likely the source of the silliness.

We are not even pushing for same-sex marriage. Our lobby is called Australian Marriage Equality. And equality is our chief concept, ie our "chosen and preferred terms" are universal not LGBTI specific. "Vehemently opposed" - are you bonkers? You only pasted verbosely about human rights because you couldn’t see us in it. We are in #16.3 as family and it is unnatural and immoral to jettison us from family or that of our partners/in laws.

But I went to investigate why you didn't quote the United Nations or its affiliates directly. Well surprise, slightly, your website does not ever mention sexuality, gender, intersex, homosexual, lesbian or transgender. They tell and sell the 'history' of human rights without including us, our experience of violence and death, and no mention of the Yogyakarta Principles. Why worry about minor rights like marriage and voting if some of your family do not have the right to have been born or to safety?

These are people who cannot discern what it is to be human. But they knew better than to declare who they are, which country they are from or to even have a Wikipedia entry. They love freedom of privacy. More than they like moral responsibility.

Onthebeach did you stumbled upon the web site not knowing they were homophobes and transphobes? Your comment was not stumbled upon stupidity, it was the product of hate which prevent you from seeing that is was utter nonsense to claim there was not “much dispute world-wide about what marriage is understood to be”. I need your help for equality: What could I say against you that would be as equally silly? Sorry I’ve a tangle of neurons.