Suseonline "I don't care what Labor did or didn't do, as I don't vote for them."

You also didn't vote for the governments of Ireland, Canada, the USA or NZ.
But you trumpet their decisions as representative of a "majority" of their citizens.

Presumably, Labor governments also "represented" the majority of Australians, yet did nothing about this issue while in power.
Hypocrites!

We don't vote for judges either, so why should we accept their undemocratic decisions, applied community-wide after case-specific judgements?

"Shockadelic what are you on about with bisexual people and bigamy? No one is suggesting anyone will be allowed to marry more than one person at once"

That is precisely my point.

Everyone keeps going on about "love, love, love", ignoring the fact that some people "love" BOTH sexes or more than one significant partner.

Why are those "loves" not "equal" to monogamous straight or gay couples?

Bisexuals and multi-partner relationships are apparently invisible to the reformist activists.
They are still perpetuating restrictive antiquated conceptions.

There is still only one cake, with 2 figurines on it.
Hardly revolutionary.

Rhian,
where on earth did you get it that the states can legislate as to marriage. Seems to me you do not understand the constitution. The states only were able to continue their colonial powers regarding marriages until the Commonwealth commenced to legislate upon it, thereafter no further legislation.

Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the Commonwealth legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive.
END QUOTE

Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the states will nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.
Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?
Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws will, however, remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of making these new laws will be all the more forced on the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE

Shockadelic,

Just how exactly do you think marriage could cater for bisexuals beyond allowing same-sex marriage as well as heterosexual marriage? Do you know what bisexuality is?

As for polygamy, there are many reasons to reject it. Firstly, societies that have allowed it have always had immense social problems, and while that does not necessarily suggest that polygamy is to blame for those social problems, having men compete for a limited pool of women while others take more than their “fair share” is not conducive to a healthy society.

Secondly, having governments limit the number of parties to a contract is an entirely different story to excluding certain people because of their sex. As a gay man yourself, I'm astonished that you couldn't make this distinction.

Thirdly, and following from the last point, polygamy is not a trait that one is born with. Discriminating against someone because of how they behave or want to behave is an entirely different kettle fish to discriminating against someone because of how they are born.

Fourthly, polygamous arrangements often involve rape and incest.

AJ Philips,

If “words don’t have meanings”, then your response, being in words, doesn’t have a meaning.

Marriage has not changed its meaning in our society. There have been restrictions on access to marriage and different reasons for marrying at different times, but marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman.

Words do change their meanings, but the same-sex marriage argument is not presented as a need to change a meaning but as a dreadful case of discrimination and human rights infringement in which a word meaning something gays would hate to have must now be applied to something that they want to and may have. I see no reason to deprive the language of a word that means the union of a man and a woman.

Gays have always been able to marry – and many did. The reason that not being able to call a same-sex union marriage a cause of mental health problems for 980 years was that no one had thought of the idea that the meaning of a word was in fact discrimination. Someone then invented the idea that it was and thus created the feelings of exclusion.

Rhrosty,

I am not surprised that you resort to untrue, name-calling, abusive drivel, given the utter lack of logic of your case.

I am not a member of the “ultra religious far right”. I have never used “God” in any of my arguments on this issue. I regard religious argument as irrelevant.

Same-sex marriage is not “marriage equality”, but word theft.

The republic referendum was defeated because the republicans could not agree among themselves. No society today would establish itself with a hereditary monarchy, but I voted no to the republic because I did not want a president who could be sacked on the whim of a prime minister. Others voted no because they wanted an elected president. Had an elected president been proposed, lots of republicans would have voted no because they wanted an appointed president.

Your suggestion that we can have same-sex marriage or the Abbott government is nonsense. If Labor wins, a bill to create same-sex marriage will be introduced and, given the number of Labor MPS who have caved into the airheads, probably passed. If the Abbott government is returned, a plebiscite will be held, not to stop same-sex marriage but so that the Abbott government can wash its hands of responsibility. It will be worded in such a way that it will get a majority of the vote. Then, a bill to create same-sex marriage will be introduced and passed – no “probably” this time. Then the language will no longer have a word that denotes the union of a man and a woman, and the bandwagon can move onto to some new issue created out of nothing and start abusing and name-calling those who do not agree. But get on board the day it leaves the station. Don’t wait 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years to display your trendy credentials, as most of the same-sex marriage brigade did.

Read what I said again, Chris C.

<<If “words don’t have meanings”, then your response, being in words, doesn’t have a meaning.>>

I was going to say “inherent meaning” so as to not invoke such a petty response, but opted not to at the last minute to see if you’d be silly enough to try it on.

My point still stands.

<<Marriage has not changed its meaning in our society. There have been restrictions on access to marriage and different reasons for marrying at different times, but marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman.>>

Well then it has changed its meaning then, hasn’t it. Since when did the meaning of marriage only constitute the sexes involved?

This is the argumentum ad antiquitatem fallacy, by the way.

<<Words do change their meanings, but the same-sex marriage argument is not presented as a need to change a meaning but as a dreadful case of discrimination and human rights infringement in which a word meaning something gays would hate to have must now be applied to something that they want to and may have.>>

Then why make invalid claims about alleged “word theft” instead of demonstrating why the case of discrimination is so dreadful? I suppose you did give the ‘980 years’ idea a crack, and you’ve tried it again (this time with the claim that same-sex couples have always been able to marry and that mental health issues within the gay community only began with the marriage equality campaign), but I’ve already dealt with that and your latest attempt at it does nothing to negate what I said earlier.

<<I see no reason to deprive the language of a word that means the union of a man and a woman.>>

And I see no reason why we need a word that means specifically “the union of a man and a woman”. There is no word for “partner” reserved specifically for heterosexual couples to indicated that the partner is a heterosexual partner, but your life doesn’t seem to be too affected by that.