It seems that in the long run there will need to exist two types of marriage, secular and religious, so that for religious people the sacrament of marriage is maintained. Alternatively, marriage could be privatized as nature's God intended.

Don't meddle with the Marriage Act - REPEAL IT!

Completely disagree!
Equality in marriage would finally recognize in law the fact that those people who happen to be born different, didn't chose it to be so!

Let the people speak and put it to an overdue plebiscite, which by the way just allows us to know the will of the people; but does not bind our so called law givers the way a referendum would?

Either would do, given the usual medley of dyed in the wool control freaks have had far too much to say for far too long!

And simply put, it is just not down to them!

I would however not impose any thou musts on any of the usual bigots the way they have with folks who just happen to be born different.

And given they are born different, still part of the family of man and God's creation.

I don't pretend to know what purpose God had in creating this naturally occurring aberration; other than to force the pious hypocrites among us, to acknowledge their own fundamental flaws or that not everything read in some alleged holy book is Gospel/it ain't necessarily so.

The concept of, at least do no harm must hold sway here.

As opposed to the probable suicides of literal hordes of seriously unhappy folk who have been persuaded, that their natural aberration is against the will of the creator, [who made them just as they are,] and is a terrible sin.

And given they as extremely vulnerable and impressionable young folk, could not stop being themselves!

And therefore, sadly, chose suicide as opposed to continue to live in Church labelled sin!

Time to stop listening to the voices in your fundamentally fatuous head; and stop being entirely unreasonable toward folk who have never ever been given a so called choice!

And not down to the very reverend (judge, jury and hangman) to tell us what God thinks; given he couldn't possibly know?
Rhrosty.

Not all people who oppose same-sex "marriage" are religious and such arguments confuse the issue. The term "marriage equality" also confuses, since all persons gay or straight already have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

I agree with the author that it would be better for same sex unions to be recognised under their own Act with regulations (e.g. for inheritance) that are more suited to their circumstances. I support the legalisation of same-sex unions.

Historically "love" was never an essential prerequisite or condition for marriage. The historic esteem for marriage has been for its role in reproducing the human species as a legal/social/religious contract, whereby the parents took responsibility for staying together and supporting their family (and commonly their extended family also.) Same-sex unions, unlike a marriage between a man and a woman, are incapable of joint reproduction and consequently are fundamentally different to a conventional marriage.

The desire to use the term "marriage" is an attempt to seek social recognition and approval for gay and lesbian lifestyles.

I believe that only a minority within the gay and lesbian communities will ever seek to formalise legal relationships and much fewer again will seek to have children.

Rhrosty, "the fact that those people who happen to be born different, didn't chose it to be so!"

That so?

How then do you explain the chosen, flexed sexual preferences of Anne Hecke and the many other examples from celebrities alone?

Undying love lost with Degeneres,
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=116193

Happy mum with loving husband (a male husband not the faux version) and family,
http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/pictures/stars-family-holiday-traditions-20123110/25836

The mantra that gays are born is necessary, essential to spruiking the falsehood that gays are somehow denied marriage and other 'rights' isn't it?

Dear Rhrosty,

<<Equality in marriage would finally recognize in law the fact that those people who happen to be born different, didn't chose it to be so!>>

It would never achieve that purpose, since legislation never tells what is so.

Even if the service of homosexual-marriage is provided by the state as proposed, that tells nothing about whether or not the people in question chose to be homosexuals.

Equality in marriage can also be achieved by stopping the state from meddling with private loving relationships altogether. If you think about it, even now they don't have a way to tell who loves whom and who is truly married to whom.

---

Dear Bren,

<<all persons gay or straight already have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex.>>

AND of the same sex as well. The fact that the state would not recognise such a marriage makes no difference - it's not illegal.

Onthebeach: The only person able to decide their sexuality before they were born?

Would be the self made man or woman, you know the one born in the log cabin he/she hewed from the wilderness with his/her own two hands!?

Incidentally, in earlier times as Alaska was being pioneered, the men going to that particular wilderness were real men, so also were the women.
Rhrosty.

Yes but we're only at the beginning as far as progressives are concerned, changing the act is the first step, not the conclusion of an activist path.
Changing the marriage act won't result in equality, remember despite the professions of equality for all by progressives the practical effect of all their activism is always a fragmentation and fracturing of society along an increasingly complex system of demarcation. Changing the marriage act in accordance with the Shorten model will create at least four new and distinctively different types of marriage, not unify all into "marriage equality".
Opposite sex marriage.
Same sex female.
Same sex male.
Opposite sex transgender.
Same sex transgender.
Given that "progressives" now recognise something in the order of seven distinct genders and also "gender fluidity" and claim that gender is a more important distinction than biological sex there are sure to be more and more forms of marriage defined in their gender spectrum.
The most important things to remember when dealing with progressives are that they don't base their conclusions on measurable results, that facts don't matter to them and lies are just as acceptable as truth if they fit the narrative also their experimental social constructs are far more important to them than scientific theories.

'And therefore, sadly, chose suicide as opposed to continue to live in Church labelled sin!'

sadly as usual Rhrosty perpetuates the lie. We have more suicide now since immoral and perverted lifestyles are promoted mainly by media and others trying to feel comfortable about their own. Teenagers are more confused than ever thanks to myths promoted like those of Rhrosty. The myth of someone being born homosexual is also pushed. If true so to are paedophiles 'born that way'. It is obvious one makes choices in regards to sexual behavour. Just ask many man hating lesbians who have had bad experiences with men. Obvious design of male and female bodies is overlooked by those pushing such family hating dogmas. Suddenly biology and science means nothing to the regressives.

There is not, and there can never be, "equality" in marriage. Why? Because marriage occurs only between a man and a woman.

Homosexuals can make their own arrangements - and receive the same benefits of a de facto relationship just the same as other people can.

Why all the fuss about marriage for unnatural relationships?

I have no interest in homosexuals or what they do. But, they can never be married, no matter what the law will say or not say in the future. Common sense should tell us that. But, the whole damn thing is purely political, and not a lot of common sense comes into politics.

Rhrosty,

Quite obviously, choice IS being exercised and there are many examples.

Our Marriage Act had quite a few changes done to it
over the years. However prior to 2004 it did not
contain the amendment clause that marriage was between
a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others.
This was inserted under the Howard Government in 2004.

I don't see why Australia should not decide whether
we "meddle with the Marriage Act." It's already been
"meddled" with. Put it to a vote and let the people
of this country decide - as others in countries like
Ireland have done.

That would be fair.

Jay Of Melbourne,

Good analysis.

General Comment
There may have been some rationalisation in the past for having single people support married, but I can see no justification whatsoever in modern times for single taxpayers, single members of super funds, health funds and the like being forced to financially subsidise and support other people's choices in life.

As small contributors to superannuation, young workers, especially casuals are shown no quarter, their meagre investments being eaten away by fees equal to larger investors.

Why the hell should young working couples who are having difficulty being able to provide for themselves and provide the wherewithal such as a home for the family they hope for, be required to shoulder the additional burden of others' choices, freely made?

Has anyone come up with the additional costs to the Taxpayer of the expanded costs from defactos in the Australian Public service and quangos gaining the same entitlements as their married colleagues? On top of that came the gay partner rights and what cost?

Add to that the victim industry enabled by that fool Whitlam and the bucket of taxpayers money is leaking like a sieve. No problems for the leftist 'Progressives' though - just keep on raising taxes and taking out loans.

Young working singles and couples are going in blind, being led like lambs to the (tax) slaughter when they support sly and selfish lobbyists whose real aim isn't 'rights' at all but getting a seat on the gravy train to swing from the taxpayer's teat.

Quite obviously the leftists have been getting away for years with raiding the pockets of young working people. Another example could be the cost of all of that infrastructure in the major metropolitan cities that is made necessary by hordes of migrants for the completely unnecessary 'Big Australia'.

Honestly now, why the hell should the taxes of young working taxpayers who are struggling to pay their rent and transport be applied to fund travel and other allowances entitlements for the spouses, gay or otherwise of very well paid federal politicians and public servants?

Fox, "However prior to 2004 it did not contain the amendment clause that marriage was between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. This was inserted under the Howard Government in 2004"

Your inference that gay marriage was intended before or was occurring is deceitful and misleading. That is a deliberate, manipulative and shameless lie that has been corrected many before on this and other forums.

Bald-faced lies are an essential part of the toolkit and integral to the modus operandi of cultural Marxists. The narrative aims at wearing down the stupid and weak-willed to surrender their capacity and right to independent thought.

As you very well know and it is on the public record, PM Howard inserted the clause to ensure that the meaning and intent of the Act were preserved and the well-established institution and tradition protected against a possible sly legal assault by gay activists that could waste a heck of a lot of taxpayers' money.

Onthebeach: I have no idea why some folks choose to come out of the closet, so to speak; nor why some folk choose to remain in one; the only element of choice on display here!

I mean I know of at least one well reported micromanaging control freak who butches it up most of the time; swearing like a trooper,with in your face aggression, visiting strip clubs, where he gets blind drunk and has fooled everyone including most family members?

And remain in the closet, as opposed to losing the kids, their position in the church, or maybe put their job at risk?

No mames or pack drills, but I dare say most of us know one or two similar characters or "eccentric" uncles; or too nice by half, aunts?

Incidentally a reported 40% of us apparently believe the sun revolves around the earth; and quite happily accuse those who assert otherwise, of being liars?

Proof positive one might claim; that conviction doesn't make an uninformed or entirely ignorant opinion correct!

One would assume given your comments to date that you have no idea whatsoever of the actual biology or literal mechanics of the human sex drive; be it hetrosexual or homosexual?

But then those who've engaged in some form of gay bashing, active passive or in your face aggressive?

Are just having too much fun and therefore are never going to let go of a learned position that simply has no basis in learned medical science, or civilized society.

Personally I can't see what your problem is?

I mean nobody is ever going to ask you to participate in any way in a same sex union? So how are you affected by what other folk choose to do?

It goes against your personal beliefs?

If that's the case, do you believe we revolve around the sun or visa versa?
Rhrosty.

The government should only change any type of legislation because it is reasonable to do so. It should only support behaviour which is reasonable. Homosexual behaviour is not reasonable – there can be no logical reason to indulge in homosexual behaviour much less to form relationships and to try and mimic heterosexual relationships by getting married.

That is all the government needs to know. Until homosexuals are able to prove that their behaviour is reasonable they should not be supported in any attempt to try and change legislation. When they come up with a perfectly good argument in favour of homosexual behaviour then we should change the Marriage Act.

Let's Look At The Facts:

It is on public record that the Marriage Act had
changes made in the past but that prior
to 2004 the laws did not define marriage.

As for why Mr Howard inserted the changes to this Act -
the following website explains:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/27/1085461876842.html

All Australians are supposed to be equal under the
law - that means that nobody should be treated differently
because of their race, ethnicity, country of origin, age,
gender, marital status, disability, political or religious
beliefs, or sexual orientation.

However, seeing as there seems to be so many strong feelings
on this issue - why not allow a conscience vote in
parliament or have a plebiscite and let Australians decide
for themselves the kind of society they want to live in.

Foxy:

What exactly is a sexual orientation? If a bunch of people behave in a certain way and analyse their behaviour by claiming it is a reasonable way to behave and therefore should be supported by the government then why should we be so naive as to accept their analysis without holding it up to scrutiny?

Many people, including governments around the world, have been bullied and intimidated into not questioning the reasonableness of their behaviour. Why are homosexuals so afraid of this questioning to the point where they are prepared to try and bully governments into denying citizens the right to such questioning? You would think if they really cared about themselves they would want to understand their behaviour whever the truth may lead them.

If their behaviour is reasonable then it should be a simple thing to prove as it is with heterosexuality. Without this proof then a government should not act. The government should not be debating the reasonableness of same-sex marriage but the reasonableness of homosexual behaviour. Unless such behaviour can be shown to be reasonable then it is futile to begin talking about same-sex marriage. Any argument must be logical and that means proving your initial premise. You have to prove homosexual behaviour is reasonable long before you begin talking of sexuality, orientation, relationships or marriage.

The debate about gay “marriage” has been characterised as being about “marriage equality”.

There are some facts that have not been given due consideration in this debate. What’s been left out is due consideration of children’s rights.

Children cannot be conceived without a mother and a father. And so
• Children have a have a right and a deep need to know who that mother and father are.
• Children have a right be raised by their mother and father.
• Children have a right to be able to observe how mothers and fathers relate to each other
• Children have a right to receive and feel a mother’s care and love
• Children have a right to receive and feel a father’s love and care

Gay “marriage” by its nature cannot support these rights.
Marriage has for centuries been entered into as the best way to protect these rights.

The State therefore, should not change the nature of marriage. To do so, will undermine children’s essential rights.

See Convention on the Rights of the Child Article 7
"The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents"

Fox,

That cherry-picked SMH unsigned article does nothing to dispel what I said. Here again,

Your inference that gay marriage was intended before or was occurring is deceitful and misleading. That is a deliberate, manipulative and shameless lie that has been corrected many before on this and other forums.

Bald-faced lies are an essential part of the toolkit and integral to the modus operandi of cultural Marxists. The narrative aims at wearing down the stupid and weak-willed to surrender their capacity and right to independent thought.

You later assertion that gays have been somehow denied equality is absolute rot, just rhetoric, without any basis in fact. Unless you would like to trash all laws that is.

The Human Rights Commission is desperate to find something, anything, to justify its existence. So how come it has never ruled that the Marriage Act discriminates against homosexuals?

Tell us now, would you say that the Marriage Act denies 'equality' to Muslims and others who would like more than one spouse?

You have no fact, just a Gay Pride narrative that has been challenged successfully so many times before.

Gentlemen,

I realise that this is a controversial issue and an
emotional one for many people for a variety of reasons.
I am not interested in debating these reasons. Such as what
is "normal" and heterosexuality versus homosexuality.
People tend to see issues from a viewpoint of subjectivity
based on their personal values and experiences.

The subject of this discussion is "Let's not
meddle with the Marriage Act."
Well it has already been "meddled" with, over the years.
Any intelligent person knows that every society must meet
certain basic social needs if it is to survive
and to offer a satisfying life to its members. In each society,
therefore, people create social institutions to meet these
needs.

I stated this before on the forum - but I shall repeat it -
Each society views its own patterns of marriage,
family, and kinship as self-evidently right and proper, and
usually as God given as well.

Much of the current concern about the fate of the modern
family and marriage stems from this kind of ethnocentrism.
If we assume that there is only one "right" family and
marriage form, then naturally any change will be interpreted
as heralding the doom of the whole institution.

It is important to recognise, therefore, that there is an
immense range in marriage, family, and kinship patterns,
ranging from single-parent families, cohabitation, social
monogamy, reconstituted families, childless couples, communes,
"open" marriages, remaining single, gay couples and gay-parent
families. Each of these patterns may be, at least in its
own context, perfectly viable, and above all that marriage
and the family, like any other social institution inevitably
does change through time.

However, as far as this discussion is concerned
regarding the Marriage Act - what I am suggesting
is that why not allow either a
free vote in Parliament - where politicians could
vote on the issue according to their conscience or
have a plebiscite or a referendum and allow voters
to decide what kind of society they want to live in.
Then this matter could be settled quickly instead of
dragging on and on.

Foxy:

"I am not interested in debating these reasons. Such as whatis "normal" and heterosexuality versus homosexuality."

Well then you have little respect for logic and reason. How can you entertain discussing changes to the Marriage Act to include homosexuals without first proving that homosexual behaviour is reasonable? You can't just carry on as if it is a given. Where would we be if we treated all issues which such disregard for the fundamentals of argument by which we hope to arrive at the truth?

If you have such little regard for the rules of logic then why should we take seriously any argument you make. You are deliberately ignoring the most fundamental question of the whole debate. If homosexuality is reasonable then you should be able to easily demonstrate why in a few short sentences. Then we can proceed to discuss what flows on from that. If it is not reasonable then what is the point of the debate about same-sex marriage at all?

Dear Phanto,

But is it reasonable to have a secular state bless personal relationships and religious sacraments?
(whatever they bless, I consider a curse!)

Come to think of it, no sexual behaviour is reasonable.

---

Dear Foxy,

Legislation cannot determine "what kind of society they want to live in". In this case, the proposed legislation is only about expanding a particular government service, an unneeded one. One can anyway be in any type of relationship (of your long list) without requiring that government-service, which thankfully (unlike Iran) is not compulsory anyway in Australia.

If you want to have a plebiscite or a referendum, then you should provide a third option: to do away with the Marriage Act altogether!

Is it reasonable to have singles, particularly young working singles who can ill-afford to do so so, compulsorily subsidising other people's lifestyle choices, ie to partner?

Heterosexual marriage has been supported in the past by the community and attracted various concessions and entitlements (such as spousal travel in the public services and for politicians) because it was seen as a social good. [Although some of the arguments that is in fact a social good are contentious. The feminists say there is only a downside.]

The definition of 'partnered' has been broadened a number of times, adding large numbers in the case of de facto provisions and then then broadened again with the inclusion of gay 'relationships'.

What they are doing is further marginalising single people who must pay directly and indirectly for the couples benefits enjoyed by those who have made that lifestyle choice.

If marriage is up for trashing to suit the few, then the whole concept of marriage should be up for discussion too. After all, one would want those demanding change to have thought through the repercussions, which could be far-reaching.

It seems to be a rush to get change in before the public has time to consider anything but the superficial mantras that receive far too much air time.

Why should a single be forced to pay for someone else's 'love'?

I don't have anything more to add to this
discussion.

I have expressed my opinion on the subject.

I shall leave any further analysis to
those who want to delve deeper into the issues that
are of concern to them.

It shall be interesting to see whether the government
decides to tackle this issue prior to the election
or put it off for the future.

Fox,

Like the missed opportunity to take action on that ANAO Report to fix the 'Open Door' politicians' entitlements, Labor had six years to do introduce Gay Marriage but they did nothing, zilch.

Now Labor and their Greens sidekicks have the gall to claim that gay marriage is all Abbott's responsibility. So do you. What front! LOL

Why should singles - most will be women (age demographics) - be forced to pay for someone else's 'love'?