What the equal marriage right people lose sight of is the huge impact institutionalised monogamy ( or nuclear family) has had as the fundamental building block of the Judeo- Christian world ( "JC World").
The teachings of the Bible may be as logically unsustainable as those of the Koran but it is undeniable that the JC World contains the only societies which have given rise to the inventions, innovations and institutions which have multiplied the productivity of mankind.( Inventions all the way from steam engine through to internet and rockets to the moon)

Other societies which have lifted the wealth of their members have also adopted the nuclear family as their basic building block.

It is the nuclear family which provides the basis of nurture and education of children to bring them to their maximum potential where those innovations and inventions are created.

There are personal relationship laws which place same sex couples in the same position as divorcing couples on death and separation so the fight here is about symbolism.

The family based on a same sex couple as a vessel for nurture of children is untested. The family so based can not be universal if the species is to be maintained. It is inherently not universally sustainable.

If we do not keep the traditional definition of marriage and the symbolism that goes with it, what argument do we have against the Muslim who wants to "marry" wife number 2, 3, or 4 ? Assuming they "love one another" (ugh!).

We may be destroying the very basis of the prosperity we now enjoy.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the strongest opposition to this is coming from sometimes ultra-religious closet Gays?

And who manage their (Homophobic?) farce by being more butch than Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid?

And given they are living a constant lie, are often compulsive bullies or tellers of mistruths or terminological exactitudes, have extremely short tempers, little if any tolerance for dissent and generally express themselves with endless, butch it up expletives!?

How are we doing so far? Ring any bells?

And I'm not saying this applies to all house husbands or men who seem to have a strong almost materialistic attachment to their much loved children; albeit, that would not necessarily surprise?

Other than that, I can find no other plausible reason for Latham's opposition, other than he always seemed an oddball/eccentric character and at times seemingly brilliant if somewhat flawed/best ever Labor opposition Leader?

But particularly presumptuous and fatally flawed in reading the public mood and or on some of his decision making or policy calls.

I mean here was the man who, after climbing over others to get the top job, almost single handedly killed Labor's chances of beating the long stand Howard regime, by climbing into bed with Green's leader, Bob Brown!?

Talk about a meeting of like minds or fundamentally flawed personalities; and given politically expediency, seemed more than capable of running with the hare or hunting with the hounds?

And as popular in today's labor circles, as a pork chop at a Bar Mitzva?

And given just how wrong he's been as a reader of public sentiment, go in exactly the opposite direction to what he proposes!
Rhrosty.

His article illustrates very clearly why the politicians need to be removed from the equation and relegate the decision to the Australian people in the form of a plebiscite.

A good article and long due.

It is largely the taxpayer-funded ($1.3billion pa) national broadcaster that has kept SSM and other 'Progressive' priorities in the limelight.

I don't mind that 'their' ABC has its 'Progressive' editorial policy and that it likes to be seen as THE leading crest of the 'Progressive' wave (while shamelessly aping the BBC) and tres politically correct.

I just don't want to pay the ABC for its politics, albeit reformist as it likes to see itself.

Honestly, how many redundant politics and public affairs shows, repetitive bumpf, should the exasperated taxpayer have to stump up $$ for?

If we cannot have the old independent Auntie back then by all means set it adrift to fend for itself. It is already well set up to do so and has plenty of fat to shed.

Put the taxpayers dollars into necessary, urgent, infrastructure development, such as developing North Queensland and making Highway 1 safer by getting rid of those one lane bridges for instance.

If it is such a minor issue, then why can't it just be passed on the nod by both sides and more important issues addressed?

I don't agree that marriage is a minor issue that is only to make people feel better about having a document. It may have become debased to that extent, but if it has, then it says less about the institution than it does about the shallowness of attachments in our Brave New World.

Marriage is no less important than any other contract. I doubt very much that Mr Latham or any of those who argue for the trivialisation of marriage would be similarly cavalier in their attitudes to contracts for important things like money...

If the only purpose of marriage is to make it easy to administer child support collections when it ends, then by all means, get rid of it. Does anyone really think that's all there is to it, though?

Although it is mostly based in the context of American culture and religion, and the European situation too, I find that a website titled The Bilgrimage provides a much more nuanced and complex understanding of the all-important emotional-sexual dimensions of human culture.

And of the puritanical sex-and-body-paranoid double mindedness at the root of the "traditional" mis-understanding of the emotional-sexual dimensions of our existence-being. Especially as it relates to women and children, people of colour (whether christian or not)), and anybody who is in any way different from the binary black-and-white norm as defined by the up-until-now in power paradigm as defined and enforced by the in power church "fathers".

Craig Minns. Why not a plebiscite?

Craig Minns:

“Marriage is no less important than any other contract. I doubt very much that Mr Latham or any of those who argue for the trivialisation of marriage would be similarly cavalier in their attitudes to contracts for important things like money...”

Only people who are insecure would want a ‘contract’. Who would want to be in a relation with someone who is only there because of some legal constraint? The only reason to be in an intimate relationship with someone is because you love that person – anything else is a sham. Demanding that the government set up legislation just to protect you from your insecurities is extremely selfish because you are calling on the taxpayer’s money to do what is fundamentally your own responsibility – to deal with your own insecurities. This is not a function of government.

No one is arguing for the trivialisation of marriage. You can make it as ‘sacred’ as you like in your own head. What you make of marriage in your own head is up to you but do not expect the taxpayer to support the value that you put on marriage and ignore all the other values that people have about marriage including those who think it is trivial. Supporting one value over and above others would be discrimination.

“If the only purpose of marriage is to make it easy to administer child support collections when it ends, then by all means, get rid of it. Does anyone really think that's all there is to it, though?”

What else do you think there is to it Craig?

Why a plebiscite? That's just more money spent and more time wasted for politicians who should be doing things that require genuine and serious consideration and work.

This is a simple regulatory matter that should really be subject to the old "man on the Chatham omnibus" test and nothing more. Did we need a plebiscite to pass the various Discrimination Acts? Did we need a plebiscite to pass the various Fair Work Acts? did we need a plebiscite to pass Howard's (excellent) gun laws and buyback scheme?

If this can't be done by our Parliamentary representatives on the nod with no more fuss than asking the Office of Parliamentary Counsel to put some appropriate words together then what on Earth do we have a Parliament for?

I must repent. I really felt to replace Beasley with Mark Latham was gift to the Liberals. Latham however has shown himself to be miles ahead of Rudd, Gillard and Shorten in integrity and commonsene.

//Why not a plebiscite?//

Because they cost a truckload and we're trying to save money.

We have Parliament for a reason: if we're not going to trust them to govern in the best interests of the Australian people then we should dissolve the Parliament, embrace absolute democracy and make every policy decision subject to a plebiscite.

Or we can trust the politicians to do the job they're elected to do and govern for us. If we don't like the way they govern we can always pick a new mob in a few years time.

Sometimes I think absolute democracy would be a purer form of democracy than representative democracy. But I suspect that it's like socialism and looks better on paper than it works in real life.

//the old "man on the Chatham omnibus" test//

In my philosophy classes it was always the 'Clapham omnibus'. Google supports my view (when I googled 'Chatham omnibus' it automatically included results for 'Clapham omnibus').

//I must repent.//

If only... true repentance requires contrition. From the way you conduct yourself in your posts, I very much doubt if you have ever truly felt contrition for your sins.

Who cares what that has-been poor excuse for a politician Mark Latham says or thinks on these issues? Is he even still in politics?

It is only a matter of time before same-sex marriage is legal in Australia, and I still don't see any problems with that.

'very much doubt if you have ever truly felt contrition for your sins.'
suddenly believe in sin Tony. Amazing

Indeed Mark was too rational for Labor. Almost too rational for contemporary AU parliments.

On this gay marriage thing I fail to understand what proponents expect to achieve from it.
"Marriage" is a word, a name. It's what we call the exclusive union of a man and women. Primarily a reproduction union. A same sex union isn't the same thing. It's a denial of logic and fact to suggest it's the same thing.
If a same sex couple want to make a formal and legal union commitment well and good but come up with a name for it instead of trying to say it's something it isn't.

If the want is to not feel different stealing a name isn't going to do it. If anything it'll do the opposite. It'll just make the difference more conspicuous and weird looking.

We badly need competent opposition. Every parliment state and fed is the same at the moment. Silly distractions like the gay marriage thing aren't doing us any good. The current gov' badly needs opposition. It needs to be challenged. So did the last one and the one before that, and the one before that.
There isn't any opposition. The Laborals have met in the middle, their middle, so none of what they agree on gets questioned. No matter how harmful it is.

""Marriage" is a word, a name."

Interesting argument following the posts using the word omnibus.

Yes Toni, "Clapham" is of course, what I meant. Perhaps there was some unconscious resonance with "Latham" in my mind when I wrote "Chatham".

Jamo, I agree with you that this issue is a distraction, so why are you still arguing about the use of what is, as you say is just a name?

Phanto, I may wish to sign a contract to show my own good faith and my hope for the future success of the relationship. A symbol of my own total commitment to the enterprise of marriage.

I have no idea what you might do.

Runner, what do you think "sin" is? What makes something a "sin"? what are the elements of "repentance" and what is the purpose of repenting? I'm genuinely interested to hear your explanations.

While I agree with marriage equality, I also agree with Latham that the issue has been vastly overblown.

The changes from 1990 to 2007 brought the recognition of de facto relationships of all shades close to the point of marriage equality in all but name.

The priority that labor and the greens have given the issue is a reflection of their dearth of substantive policies.

//suddenly believe in sin Tony.//

No, my religious tradition doesn't really have a concept of 'sin' the way Christianity does. But I have been generally led to believe that Christians do believe in sin. Have I been misinformed?

'Runner, what do you think "sin" is? What makes something a "sin"? what are the elements of "repentance" and what is the purpose of repenting? I'm genuinely interested to hear your explanations.'

Big topic Craig

simply put sin is 'missing the mark'. God's design was always for us to love Him and love others.

'What makes something sin?' The things God declares wrong are sin. This is validated by our conscience.

Repentance is a change of mind which generally leads to a change of action. eg. instead of cursing the Lord Jesus Christ you worship Him, instead of living in fornication you admit its wrong and change your actions.

This is a very general answer to a huge topic.

Runner, when has it been proved that a God actually 'told' any human what is right or wrong? Names and dates please.

Or could you actually mean that some mere humans 'told' other humans that a God 'spoke' to them?
Not the same thing at all.

To make progeny
Man has sex, then homosex
Is an irony

The word marriage is used only to signify the wedding of a man and a woman. Same sex couples cannot marry but only have something like friendship agreement.

Susie

'Runner, when has it been proved that a God actually 'told' any human what is right or wrong? Names and dates please.'

Don't foget Susie that your godless dogma does not allow for reason or commonsense. You are obviously totally spiritully blind. I take it you think you are capable of determining right or right?

Craig Minns:

“Phanto, I may wish to sign a contract to show my own good faith and my hope for the future success of the relationship. A symbol of my own total commitment to the enterprise of marriage.”

Why should the taxpayers help you do this? It is hardly an essential service that governments should be responsible for.

“I have no idea what you might do”

You don’t need to know what I might do. We are discussing principles and ideas not the personal preferences of individuals on the forum.

//eg. instead of cursing the Lord Jesus Christ you worship Him, instead of living in fornication you admit its wrong and change your actions.//

More examples:

Instead of being Wrathful you are Patient, instead of being Proud you are Humble.

Phanto, last I checked, marriage licenses were priced on at least a cost-recovery basis.

Since you think we are "discussing principles and ideas", perhaps you could prevail upon those who think that the main principle at stake is the price that one's soul should fetch to name a figure? I'm prepared to make an offer as a job-lot if they act quickly.

Runner, I'd like to take up the discussion at a more suitable time and on a more appropriate thread. If I was to start a discussion in the general section, would you be interested in participating?

Ezhil, I've just run your analysis past my 17 year old son and he has confirmed that you are correct in linking the act of heterosexual sex with the possibility of making babies. He's a very caring lad and he was concerned that I should make sure that you are properly informed of the options, though. Apparently, it's not necessarily a foregone conclusion!

His recommendation is that you investigate the following link and if you have any questions, he is happy to answer them for you.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control

As a gesture of friendship.

Lol Runner, cough up or give it up. You didn't answer my question, because you can't.

I take each person as they come, and have found many wonderfully 'moral' people of both the God-believers and the non-believers.

The same goes for those who are heterosexual or homosexual, they are either good people, or they are not, despite who they 'fornicate' with.
Fornicate is such a horrible word anyway, obviously made up by those who consider sex an unpleasant activity only useful for procreation.

Sad really....

The word marriage is the name of a civil contract between a man and a woman.

If two persons of the same gender wish to have a word to mean a civil contract between those of the same gender, they can come up with a word that means just that.

The only reason they want the word marriage is to try and raise the respectability of their sexual activities, some of which which are seen by many as unclean.

There is more than sufficient difference between a hetrosexual union and a homosexual union to warrant a different word to describe the unions.

The word marriage should be reserved exclusively for a hetrosexual relationship.

Suse,
I too do not believe in a god, but I conceed that the rights and wrongs I was taught as a child and our basic laws are derived from Christen teachings. I see the Christian teachings as far more humane than other religions. Compare to Islam, for example.

Yes Banjo, it's just awful! Running around with gay abandon changing the meaning of perfectly nice words is the sort of thing only a bully would do.

The matrix of society is made up of decent young men chasing cute bimbos before becoming a husband to a fantastic woman and making babies to fill the house with.

Now these homosexual assassins come along and literally broadcast their seedy intentions to garble the Marriage Act, making people nervous. They're as bad as ISIS, the way they want to decimate the place!

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/words-literally-changed-meaning-through-2173079

There may be some good reasons for failing to ratify marriage equality, but lexical purity isn't one of them...

//If two persons of the same gender wish to have a word to mean a civil contract between those of the same gender, they can come up with a word that means just that.//

I have. But whenever I suggest it, the 'gays need their own word brigade' dismiss it or ignore it. I smell a red herring.

Oh, it's definitely a red herring, Toni Lavis. Once it was about 'racial purity', now it's about 'lexical purity' (as Craig Minns has put it). But at least racial purity was a genuine concern for some. Lexical purity is a more socially acceptable way for those who just don't like those bloody poofs to express their bigotry.

I'd call that progress, at least.

Some people do seem overly married to their ideas of the meaning of some words...

Personally I rather like wedded, as has been suggested, with its etymology of 'to pledge'. But couples will describe their relationship using whatever language they wish regardless of laws and even that seldom describes the 'quality' of it.

'Live and let live' seems a simple enough ideal.

Anyone who asserts 'live as I think you should' might be bigoted. Anyone who asserts 'live as I insist you must' certainly is... and frequently hiding behind a god!

Dear Trevor,

<<Anyone who asserts 'live as I think you should' might be bigoted. Anyone who asserts 'live as I insist you must' certainly is... and frequently hiding behind a god!>>

Absolutely so and the modern gods are the state and its government.
(otherwise how can one explain all this turbulence about the privilege of getting a piece of paper from them)

Churches used to do the same and now they start feeling the other end of the stick - I hope they learn their lesson and I hope that in future nobody either wields a stick or needs to feel its other end.

//the modern gods are the state and its government.//

They can't be. It violates the Babel fish argument.

We have definite proof of the existence of the state and the government. God cannot prove it exists for proof denies faith, and without faith God is nothing. QED.

' "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.'

One wonders why there is not a word, or words, to define the meaning of a same sex union in the English language.

Three replies to my post objecting to the use of the word marriage and yet not one put forward any reason to use the word.

This reinforces the view that the reason some homosexuals want to use the word marriage is to try and instill some degree of respectability into their lifestyle.

This then makes their motive for change fraudulent and deceitful.

yup, what I meant by "ulterior motive"

No-one needed to, Banjo.

<<Three replies to my post objecting to the use of the word marriage and yet not one put forward any reason to use the word.>>

Your augments against using the word failed when challenged. I've noted several reasons multiple times across multiple threads regarding why the word “marriage” should be used to describe legally-recognised same-sex unions, so please excuse me if I no longer feel the obligation to bore everyone with them yet again.

Here's three reasons briefly:
1. there's no reason not to;
2. equality;
3. arguments against using the word "marriage" are driven by ignorance and a desire to portray same-sex couples as inferior or bad.

The arguments against same-sex marriage are virtually identical to the arguments against interracial marriage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8JsRx2lois).

Today’s homophobes are tomorrow’s racists. But hey, at least you get to have some sense what you’ll look like to future generations.

<<This reinforces the view that the reason some homosexuals want to use the word marriage is to try and instill some degree of respectability into their lifestyle.>>

It sounds like you're implying that there is somehow a lack of respect owing to it. How is this so?

By the way, I liked your comment regarding cleanliness earlier. By that logic, lesbians can use the word "marriage" and so can gay male couples who don't engage in anal sex (assuming that’s what you were referring to) - and there are a lot of them. Furthermore, heterosexual couples who have engaged in anal sex would need to cease using the word "marriage" to describe their relationship.

“This then makes their motive for change fraudulent and deceitful.”

This may well be the case but there is no way you can ever prove it. You can hope that people would see this and vote against change but that seems unlikely.

There is a bigger principle under threat here and that is that someone is innocent until proven guilty. It is a corner stone of our system of justice. The claim is made by homosexual people and their supporters that the government is discriminating against them on the basis of their sexual orientation. For discrimination to exist there must be two things – an action which denies some thing to someone and also a basis for that denial. It is true that homosexual people are being denied government sanction of their marriage – this can be proven. What cannot be proven and would need to be proven in each separate case is that a person has the sexual orientation that they claim they have.

If you abide by the principle of innocent until proven guilty then you cannot avoid dealing with this issue. If you are unable to prove sexual orientation then you have no case. The principle must remain in place until such time as proof was able to be established. Once you remove the burden of proof then you really are on a slippery slope of an entirely different kind.

Hey AJP, I really like you. You're funny. But before I have your baby, let's just do a pre-nup check on your "principles" - kinda like a Top Gear test of logic, reasoning and moral suspension on the Nurburgring of Relativism. Here goes...!

AJP's three turbo-charged reasons hit the track:
1. there's no reason not to (fill in blank - e.g., do pederast marriage);
2. equality (fill in blank e.g., for pederasts and their catamites);
3. arguments against using the word "marriage" are driven by ignorance and a desire to portray pederast-boy couplets couples as inferior or bad.

So much for "discrimination" eh? Team NAMBLA, start your engines!

Cruel nasty discriminations against age, quantity, kinship proximity, species. Where's that good ole late Roman Emperor Elagabalus when we need him?

Phanto,

Civil law works based on a 'balance of probabilities' (as opposed to the requirement for 'guilt beyond reasonable doubt' in criminal law). It is unlikely that an individual would fake their sexuality to such a great extent and given the reduced standard of proof required with the ‘balance of probabilities’, I don’t think any legal principals are under any great threat. Sharing a house together for a couple of years and some joint bank accounts would be sufficient evidence for a same-sex relationship in a civil case.

mil.observer,

A minor can't consent. My arguments still stand. Apparently I do need to bore others by repeating myself.

Relations with minors causes demonstrable harm, as does polygamy and incest. Zoophilia is a waste of public resources given that it provides no practical, legal or symbolic benefit to the zoophile. Your arguments are invalid.

Nice Slippery Slope Fallacy, though.

Wow AJP, that put me back in my box! Leibniz and Kepler got nuthin on you m8

Yeah, your "race" theory is no "fallacy" either is it? Real science stuff innit?

Like er marriage between male and female of most dynamic possible genetic difference to produce healthy hybrids preferably from parents of two different cultures and languages.

And to you that's just like luvverly David Furness and Elton with their rent-a-womb slavery to buy a baby.

Nicey nice

The moon must be full...

Yep, it certainly did, mil.observer.

<<Wow AJP, that put me back in my box!>>

It’s kickin’ arse like that that just keeps me coming back to OLO no matter how much I try to pull myself away from it.

<<Yeah, your "race" theory is no "fallacy" either is it? Real science stuff innit?>>

I never claimed that the similarities between the arguments against interracial marriage and same-sex marriage were scientific, or on a scientific level. The fact that they’re almost word for word identical is enough by itself. Clearly you didn’t bother to watch the video I linked to. You really should check out the links that others post. It can save you a lot of embarrassment in the future.

<<Like er marriage between male and female of most dynamic possible genetic difference to produce healthy hybrids preferably from parents of two different cultures and languages.>>

The fact that those against interracial marriage were ignorant of the biology you mention doesn’t detract from the similarities between the two lines of protestation. In fact, it actually adds to them because those who argue against same-sex marriage are often ignorant of the fact that sexuality is not binary but varying points on a broad spectrum. So there is no biologically right or wrong way and even if there were, have fun trying to scientifically pinpoint it.

AJP keep on clownin'.

"Race" is a big filthy lie, and the very concept of "interracial" is itself an even more disgusting lie still inflicted on young people. The concept itself is actually racist and completely unsustainable on examination of humanity's actually universal mixture (except in maybe some in-bred royal circles, for example).

No surprise that the gaily-weds spout the disgusting "race" term so much in a desperate grab at more elevated Victim status: actually dynamic and obviously genetically diverse marriage and hybrid reproduction is at the polar opposite of the Sparta-Nazi-Norfolk Island-style Gay cults which would so comfortably back the current bogus S-S "marriage" campaign.

An even filthier aspect of the "race" concept noticeable here is the deranged and utterly perverse comparison between actual life-affirming marriage of opposites and the total failure symbolized by shams of those many psychologically pickled types who've failed to achieve that basic part of their human potential in courting and propagation.

Sham bogus pretend "marriage" is obviously meant to compensate for the inadequacies and failures of people who deem themselves "Too Big To Fail"
- and more people are realizing that fact.

Come to think of it AJP, seems a bit like your lost struggle with the subjects of law, morality and values.

Oh well, say hi to Singer and Nitschke for me! (better you than me)

Enjoy your time on the wrong side of history (and biology, ideology, philosophy, religion, not to forget serious spirituality and child-rearing)

mil.observer,

I tend to clown about when the arguments I’m dealing with do not deserve to be taken seriously, and arguments involving Nazism and NAMBLA in a discussion on same-sex marriage do not deserve to be taken seriously.

I’m aware of the fact that race is not a scientifically valid concept and any righteousness that you display in referring to the concept of race as a “filthy lie” is not going to do much to neutralise the bigotry you display towards homosexuality. But the fact that race is not a valid concept, while sexuality is, does not make the two any less analogous. So long as the arguments are literally the same and display an intolerance towards others and an ignorance of science, my analogy remains perfectly valid.

The fact that you think that the invalidity of race as a concept detracts from the parallels I’ve drawn between objections to interracial marriage and objections to same-sex marriage only strengthens my analogy by exposing an ignorance on your behalf - the implication that science/biology holds the answer to the goodness or rightness of same-sex marriage. This is essentially the Appeal to Nature fallacy.

Furthermore, marriage is a social construct, it’s not biology; your conflation of the two, in your notion of “life-affirming marriage”, is sociologically naive.

So, you’ve failed to support your argument on a biological level, a logical level, and a sociological level; and all while, ironically, accusing me of not understanding biology. Let’s see what else you’ve got…

<<...seems a bit like your lost struggle with the subjects of law, morality and values … ideology, philosophy, religion, not to forget serious spirituality.>>

I can assure you I know a damn sight more than you do about the law. You’re yet to explain how I’ve also failed on the topics of morality, values, ideology, philosophy and religion. Spirituality you would need to define first, since that means something different to everyone. As for child rearing, though, I’ve studied developmental psychology and developmental criminology, so I’d be fascinated to learn my about failings in that respect.

Over to you.

A J Phillips:

“Civil law works based on a 'balance of probabilities' (as opposed to the requirement for 'guilt beyond reasonable doubt' in criminal law). It is unlikely that an individual would fake their sexuality to such a great extent and given the reduced standard of proof required with the ‘balance of probabilities’, I don’t think any legal principals are under any great threat. Sharing a house together for a couple of years and some joint bank accounts would be sufficient evidence for a same-sex relationship in a civil case.”

Are cases of discrimination civil cases? When you bring a case of discrimination to an Equality Commission is it not because you think you are a victim of someone who has broken the law against discrimination?

Civil discrimination in the lower courts is subject to Statute, unless there is a defined harm that occurred as a result of the discrimination that may be actionable as a tort. In statutes, there should be clear definitions of the various elements of the matter, including the nature of the parties. In discrimination law, the nature of the parties is intrinsic to the claim and so is clearly defined, or if it is not, may form grounds for an appeal which will eventually lead to some clarification of the definitions.

What was your point?

Phanto,

Yes, cases of discrimination are civil cases covered by civil law (as opposed to criminal law) and only require the reduced 'balance of probabilities' standard of proof. The easiest way to differentiate between a civil case and a criminal case is not whether a law has been broken or not, but whether or not it requires police involvement.

A J Phillips. Thank you.

If the law is changed to include same-sex couples will same-sex heterosexuals be able to marry each other or will you have to be homosexual?

What does everyone think?

Phanto, if two people of the same sex seek to marry, then it is likely that they are homosexual. If they are not, then perhaps the Mental Health Act is more applicable than the Marriage Act.

Is there anything you'd like to tell us?

//If the law is changed to include same-sex couples will same-sex heterosexuals be able to marry each other or will you have to be homosexual?//

If the law doesn't change, will homosexuals be able to marry people of the opposite sex or will you have to be heterosexual? Elton John married a woman, and he is gayer than Santa under the influence of nitrous oxide (beyond the balance of probabilities and a shadow of a doubt).

How on earth are we going to get couples to prove they're straight before they tie the knot? If the powers that be can't suss out that Elton John is bent and let him get hitched to some sheila, how are they going to stop all the wily and somewhat less flamboyant gay people trying to game the system? It's a legal nightmare.

Dear Phanto,

<<If the law is changed to include same-sex couples will same-sex heterosexuals be able to marry each other or will you have to be homosexual?>>

Unless they are going to add a special draconian clause, or rather a new and unprecedented draconian law, forbidding the marriage of two same-sex heterosexuals, then things are going to remain as they are now, where everyone is able to marry anyone (and anything) they like.

LGBTS now having children at their perversion fests

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqEkPjUbmIA

//LGBTS now having children at their perversion fests//

I encourage everybody to watch runner's video. It gives a fascinating, if slightly disturbing, insight into what runner finds perverted: a father of a bride giving a touching speech.

Apparently that paragon of logic, tolerance and reasonableness Fred Nile tried the "Christians as victim of pooftas" line on last night on Q&A.

Gawd 'elp us...

He did make a bit of a tit of himself:

http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/qanda-special-between-a-frock-and-a-hard-place/FR1407H001S00

But less of a tit than some of the denizens of Mt. Isa did in 1976:

http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/monday-conference-homosexual-rights-and-wrongs/IV1585H001S00

Although some of those views are quite similar to ones I see posted around here... I wonder if any of our resident homophobes were at that Monday Conference?

"...Fred Nile tried the "Christians as victim of pooftas" line on last night on Q&A."

Victim?

That seems disingenuous of him since his political success over decades has been based largely on his riding the backs of homosexuals.

Wm Trevor, I'm not sure Fred Nile would like you saying that.