“It's better to think of religious freedom as freedom of belief”.

Everyone already has freedom of belief including religious people. No one can control what you believe. Religious people have the right to believe what they like but they do not have the right to act as they like. This is how they try and manipulate society by making it sound as if they are being denied some fundamental human right. When they try and get the school curriculum changed it is an action but when they are denied such change they claim it is an abuse of the freedom of religion. They can still have their beliefs just not certain outcomes effecting education.

Religious people have never had the freedom to do what they like. They have always had to live in a society which must be considered as a whole. They have had to make way for human rights which translate to non-religious people as well. The reality was that most of society once wanted what religious people wanted and so there was little discord. Now things have changed and in western societies the non-religious are the majority.

Religious people now find that they have to argue for the actions they want to take and their arguments are found wanting because they are not and never have been based on reason. When they cannot come up with good reasons they resort to emotional manipulation by claiming that their ‘freedoms’ are being denied. They should present their arguments like everyone else in society has to and let them be judged on their merits. They cannot claim dispensation from the judgement by reason unless they allow such dispensation for everyone else in society.

We should be alert to this kind of manipulative ploy. If they have valid reasons for wanting to act in certain ways or for wanting society to adopt certain rules then as a part of that society they are duty bound to abide by the rules of reason. That is the way ‘God’ made us.

Religious freedom does not confer a right to knowingly break the law or trample over the equally precious rights and freedoms of others. Or cover up examples, where that is he case!

Nor does it confer a right to sit in judgement over others.

Others who just do not share your beliefs, some of which have traveled up through the centuries from the dawn of time, and are no longer accepted as anything more than allegorical analogies. And no amount of fervent belief will alter that!

It certainly doesn't give anyone the right to require a rape victim to carry a baby to full term, particularly when the fetus can be removed as simple tissue bereft of a heartbeat that would and does signify human life.

And in the case of tissue rejection; not too different from removing a tumour/human tissue that threatens the mother's life

Thus we have dispensed with the Adam and Eve fable and he subsequent incest required to populate a planet.

Nor do we believe said planet is only six thousand years old and at the centre of a solar system/universe that revolves around us!

And nobody ought to be confined inside a loveless marriage by dint of the same argument, but particularly where they function as mere bagatelle, goods and chatels or sexuual slaves.

Freedom in all cases being the operative and most important word; as in freedom to chose freedom!

Freedom to be free of all manner of religious persecution; even from banner waving fanatics, who rely entirely on unproven and unprovable belief for their authority to persecute others!

And as such were able to justify in their tiny minds, slavery, a chosen people, and a promised land etc?
Rhrosty.

Thank you Phanto, I was about to write much of the same - that freedom of religion goes far far beyond this non-contentious freedom of belief (to which the author mockingly wishes to reduce religion).

You summed it up very well:

<<Religious people have never had the freedom to do what they like. They have always had to live in a society which must be considered as a whole>>

Indeed so, at least in the West - and that's extremely wrong!

We, religious people, are here on earth for the sake of practising our religion - not for the sake of participating in this or that society. To hurt our religious freedom is equivalent to hurting your own reason to exist, whatever it may be, including the formation of societies.

<<They cannot claim dispensation from the judgement by reason unless they allow such dispensation for everyone else in society.>>

And indeed I give such dispensation to everyone, gladly.

Note that nobody is acting out of reason anyway. Everything that exists is bound to be destroyed, including all of mankind's achievements, so to foster those, building castles on sand, is simply irrational - yet go ahead and do what you like, I won't stop you because what you do is irrational - but please do not stop me either!

The complete nonsense that is the “same-sex marriage” debate is evidenced by the following statement:
“One person believes in same sex marriage. Another does not. Their beliefs are equally protected. But only one side of the debate has their actual right to marry discriminated against.”

Imagine instead:
“One person believes in carnivorous vegetarianism. Another does not. Their beliefs are equally protected. But only one side of the debate has their actual right to carnivorous vegetarianism discriminated against.”

There is no such thing as same-sex marriage just as there is no such thing as carnivorous vegetarianism. No one is discriminated against because marriage has one meaning and not another.

Every adult – gay or straight – has the same right to marry; i.e., to form a union with one adult of the opposite sex. Those who instead of marrying want to form a same-sex union are free to do so, but that union is not a “marriage”, just as circle is not a square.

I have never before seen such an issue created out of nothing as “same-sex marriage”.

Yes we have witnessed freedom from religion over the last 40-50 years. Freedom for teenagers to sleep with multiple partners, freedom for teenagers them to top themselves, murder the unwanted baby, freedom to inject inhale drugs, freedom to carry on like idiots and not be disciplined, freedom from religion is great! And yet the irreligious still want to send their kids to religious schools.

""Freedom" is a grand and illustrious word, the torchbearer of human rights, and the aspiration upon which nations have been built."
I note the quotation marks but it still seems a reality check is in order regarding the current use of freedom. It comes exclusively from people who are only after their own freedom not freedom shared. It is a sullied word in current context. It is code for selfishness and discrimination. In addition to is use to distort freedom of religious belief, its use in freedom of speech is all about giving those who have more power to exercise their speech the justification to exercise that power over other people. It is coming from those who are already more free. It is never about equality of speech or about each group being heard. People who are genuinely interested in maximising freedom across society talk of equality and other values instead.

Religious freedom claims go much further than denying religious or moral belief. When religious freedom is used to evoke the ban on marriage equality, not only does it steal my freedom of belief but it also robs me of freedom of my innate biology -my attributes that are independent of my beliefs. I did not chose to be gay. I merely chose not to suicide and accept what others had noticed since I was 8 years old. Despite my sexuality or any moral beliefs I might have, I should have the same freedom as everyone else to form a socially recognised relationship. The same thing happens when religious belief sanctions gender or sex discrimination - both freedom of belief and of gender are restricted.

On the other hand, it is equality and fairness that maximises freedom. Calls for freedom are made when equality and fairness do not fit.

Dear Eric,

A question for you:

Once the state's definition of "marriage" is changed (now only a matter of time, it seems), do you support (why or why not) the right of those who are legally-married by the current definition, to have their marriage de-registered (without needing to live physically apart for a year)?

Recent Pew Forum research indicates that 70 per cent of the world's population live under regimes that impose the heaviest restrictions on religious freedom (http://www.pewforum.org/2009/12/17/global-restrictions-on-religion/). Through whatever historical contingencies that may have contributed to this statistical picture, we are fortunate enough to benefit from citizenship in the remaining 30 per cent.

From the point of view of this global relativity, it may seem surprising that there is sufficient concern about freedom of religion in Australia for the Australian Human Rights Commission to have initiated the recent roundtable. But this concern is not limited to Australia. It is exploited for political mileage in the US GOP primaries, and has featured in some landmark cases brought before the European Human Rights Commission.

Changing demographics of religious observance must have a good deal to do with the concern of religious institutions, with 23 percent opting for 'no religion' in the Australian 2011 Census, similar statistics for 'nones' in the US, and even higher numbers of non-religious the UK. In terms of market share, if I were a religious institution I would be worried, too.

One of the most salient questions, in my view, is that of differentiating as clearly as possible between genuine threats to freedom, which should be remedied, and threats to traditional privilege which do not merit a heavy investment of time and energy.

A very well written and argued article. I agreed on all points raised.
There is nothing 'free' about religion, other than our right to free ourselves of the shackles of religion.

Yuyutsu, can I ask under what circumstances can you see married couples choosing to get divorced because gay marriage has become legal?

The only one I can think of is those sham marriages where one spouse is actually gay, but chooses to live with someone of the opposite sex for some reason. Once the gay spouse sees that he or she can actually marry someone of the same sex, then maybe they will want out of the marriage wherein they have been living a lie?

Dear Suse,

I was referring to this article:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-11/christian-couple-vow-to-get-divorced-in-face-of-gay-marriage/6539412

And I wouldn't call it a divorce - perhaps annulment: when you are in a relationship with a financial institution, there is always a clause in the small print, explaining that the institute may change the terms of the contract by giving you a notice of xx days and if you are unhappy with the change, then you can choose to settle and terminate the relationship before the change comes into effect.

If you purchase a pot, take it home, but then when you open the wrappings you discover that unlike the picture on the cover, it's a kettle, then surely you can return it to the store and get your money back?

Eric G,

There is no “ban on marriage equality”. If everyone wants to make his or her marriage equal to everyone else’s, he or she may, but achieving such a thing in practice would be impossible.

Nor is there a ban on “same-sex marriage” (which is what some people refer to as “marriage equality” as part of the propaganda campaign), just as there is no ban on square circles or carnivorous vegetarianism or fire-breathing dragons. The fact that something does not exist does not mean it is banned.

You already “have the same freedom as everyone else to form a socially recognised relationship”. The fact that this relationship is not a marriage is neither here nor there. There are all sorts of relationships in society – mother-daughter, father-son, uncle-niece, grandmother-grandson, cousin-cousin, friend-friend, employer-employee. They don’t have to all to be called marriages to make them mean something.

Marriage is a civil institution. Religious blessing is an addition to that.

The civil institution is about merging as property owners, having rights of access to one another and duty of care to each other, having a legally sanctioned guardianship of children that are biological progeny, adopted or fostered.

Religion adds controls about sexual identity and prohibitions on sex outside of marriage and so on.

So there is general marriage and marriage within a religious context. Freedom requires all people to have access to general marriage and to be able to choose religious context when appropriate.

Dan Dare:

“The civil institution is about merging as property owners, having rights of access to one another and duty of care to each other, having a legally sanctioned guardianship of children that are biological progeny, adopted or fostered.”

If it is so vital then how come millions of couples can live together without it?

Dear Dan,

Freedom requires that any two or more people are never prevented from drawing up and entering whatever contracts they want between them.

Freedom does not require that each and every possible such contract must become a civil institution that is administered, regulated and supported by the state. Further, if the tax-payer is forced to pay for some civil institution then that institution is inconsistent with freedom.

<Quote> "Yes we have witnessed freedom from religion over the last 40-50 years. Freedom for teenagers to sleep with multiple partners, freedom for teenagers them to top themselves, murder the unwanted baby, freedom to inject inhale drugs, freedom to carry on like idiots and not be disciplined, freedom from religion is great! And yet the irreligious still want to send their kids to religious schools. <end Quote>
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 23 December 2015 3:30:40 PM

That is generalist nonsense!

I like the idea of simply having 'set of beliefs' and not singling out those that include a deity. Hopefully that will cut down on the idealogical snobbery.

Also, for Chris C and others like me who consider 'same-sex marriage' to be a contradiction, please visit http://www.got-freedom.biz, we need to team up.

Peter L,

I visited your website. The links in it would not open for me.

In any case, I will not be joining a campaign against the word theft campaign because most of those arguing against the creation of “same-sex marriage” haven’t got a clue. They present irrelevant arguments such as every child is entitled to a mother and a father as if gay people don’t already have children without their relationships being labelled marriages. They act as if the proposed plebiscite was serious when it is just to give the Coalition cover. We could take the Coalition seriously if it proposed a constitutional referendum to restore the meaning of the word “marriage “ to what everybody knew it meant for the first 113 years of federation; i.e., until the High Court amended the Constitution, not by changing any words in it but by changing the meaning of a word in it. The fact that the Coalition is not proposing this tells us all that its claimed opposition to the creation of “same-sex marriage” is not real.

I make comments on the non-issue to puncture the sheer idiocy of the argument and the pretensions of its Johnny-come-lately advocates, not because I think the word theft campaign can be stopped.

The “same-sex marriage” campaign has two lessons: the first is you can convince people of anything if you frame the debate the right way (as long as it does not cost any money); the second is you can never predict what “issue” will be created out of nothing at some future date for people who did not give a toss about it in the previous 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 years to suddenly become self-righteously passionate about it and condemnatory of all those poor benighted souls who did not jump aboard the bandwagon the day they themselves joined it.

This subject has been discussed so many times
on this forum. In this country people are free
to practice any religion they wish (providing
it doesn't break any of our laws). They are also
free not to practice any religion.

Emile Durkheim, was the first sociologist to
believe that the origins of religion were social
not supernatural. He pointed out that whatever
their source religion enhanced the solidarity of
the community as well as its faith.

Religious rituals such as Baptism, Bar Mitzvah,
Weddings, Sabbath Services, Christian Mass,
and Funerals serve to bring people together,
to remind them of their group membership,
tore-affirm their traditional values, to
maintain prohibitions and taboos, and to offer
comfort in times of crisis. In general to
transmit the cultural heritage from one
generation to the next.

In fact Durkheim argued that shared religious
beliefs and the rituals that go with them are
so important that every society needs religion
or at least some belief system that serves the
same functions.

The cause of much of the social disorder in modern
societies he blamed on the lack of religious
beliefs.

“The origins of religion were social and not supernatural”

No group ever gets together as a group simply for the sake of being a group. They come together for a purpose or a shared interest. No group would ever survive without a common purpose so that common purpose is their origin. The fact that it is called a religious group tells us that its origins are in religious behaviour. Someone begins acting in a particular way and then is joined by another and another until a group forms and that group might call themselves a church. Religious beliefs do not just drop out of the sky they are created by people. They are explanations (more correctly rationalisations) of their shared behaviour. Such groups can be a billion in number but their origins remain the same and each one of the billion shares the same delusions about their behaviour as do the founding members.

Religious behaviour is what binds these people together and such behaviour has been in the past so common that it was seen as the fabric of society. A society based on such a delusion that their behaviour somehow brings them into contact with God is a society on very shaky ground. I think this is at the core of the present friction with Islam. Religious people want society structured in such a way as to protect the shaky ground but westerners by and large want society to be based on fundamental human values and rights such as justice and peace. The fundamental basis of Islam is being threatened like never before because they are being exposed to societies in the west where human values and rights are the guiding principles. The global village and immigration naturally put them into conflict with the west and someone is going to have to let go.

Muslims are not fighting for religious freedom but for what they believe is the fabric of their society.

Sociologists have observed that fundamentalist
revivals in whatever religion take place
in times when social changes have led to turmoil,
uncertainty, and the erosion of familiar values.
When people find themselves confused, threatened, or even
appalled at changing conditions. They may see a
"return to basics" as a solution.

It is not surprising, therefore, that Islamic
fundamentalism has surged in societies like Iran,
which have experienced wrenching social change
as a result of their new oil wealth.
Yes, the fundamentalists are concerned mainly
with conditions in their own countries. Most
Muslims are desperately poor, for their nations'
oil wealth has often been unequally shared,
creating a new elite whose extravagant lifestyle
arouses deep resentment in the populace.

The fundamentalists aim at nothing less than the
replacement of their rulers by Islamic governments
in which the distinction between the religious and
the secular would disappear. Their inspiration comes
from the 1979 Iranian revolution, in which the shah
a deeply unpopular ruler who was perceived as an
American puppet was deposed through a movement led
by Shiite Muslim clergy.

In many Islamic societies Shiite fundamentalists now form
the social establishment.

Every forum has its silly comments that barely register the topic and usually it is wise to step over this garbage. But I try to make sense this time.

I refer to Chris C claiming "There is no “ban on marriage equality”...Nor is there a ban on “same-sex marriage” (which is what some people refer to as “marriage equality” as part of the propaganda campaign), just as there is no ban on square circles..".

Sublimely ridiculous, of course there is a ban on square circles. We have made it very clear we want to change "a man and a woman" to "two people" in the Marriage Act 1961. We are not creating something call same-sex marriage because the whole point is we want the exact same marriage for everyone, for opposite sex, same-sex and for trans and intersex people who may not fit either opposite or same-sex. It is equality of sex, gender AND sexuality at marriage that we seek. That is where the argument is, where there is a ban and pretending it is something else, some other equality is dumb.

But this 'no it doesn't exist, you can't have it' type of rebuttal is more than dumb drivel that sounds self-defeating. It is bald-faced, unabashed prejudice. Peter L mentioned "ideological snobbery" but this is the opposite although Chris did argue "most of those arguing against the creation of “same-sex marriage” haven’t got a clue". Any poor claim, doesn't matter how baseless can carry this prejudice because expressing prejudice is paramount. It's a guttural basal response like fright, fight and flight that bypasses the reasoning of the executive functions of the cerebral cortex.

Why such freedom of thought? Because it sets a standard of prejudice on this page as petty and ridiculous and invites everyone else to feel comfortable expressing their more sanitised filtered brand of prejudice. Overall I do like this type of comment as the ‘content’ is so easily dismissed and challenging the stigma suggests our campaign has a lot more equality to offer society beyond marriage. It gives us a moral imperative.

Eric G:

Of course you can have marriage – the problem is with your definition of marriage. You define marriage as a relationship that has to be recognised by the government. Many people define their relationship as a marriage but it is not recognised by the government. What you want is not marriage but a marriage certificate. If you want the government to give you a marriage certificate then you need to present some good reasons why they should give anyone a marriage certificate.

Wanting something just to make you equal with someone else is like the child who wants medicine just to be like its sibling who is taking medicine. You need to grow up a bit and give adequate reasons why you should have a certificate - just crying ‘me too’ is childish.

Phanto: "What you want is not marriage but a marriage certificate."

You don't need to mindread or assume. It is clear we want the institution of marriage as legalised in the Marriage Act, all of it and if that comes with a certificate with nice calligraphy on fake linen paper - then yes we want a certificate. All because we want to change "a man and a woman" to "two people". We are not even asking for different paper, OK?

Neither side talk about this because it is irrelevant. Just a flimsy straw-man argument, an obvious diversion from the debate: 'look over there'.

And why? Because the urge to call the debate "childish" defied common sense.

Eric G:

"It is clear we want the institution of marriage as legalised in the Marriage Act"

But why would you want this? Why would anyone want this? You have to have reasons - everyone has to have reasons if you want the government to do something for you. Why does your marriage have to be an institution? Why does your marriage have to be legalised? Why does it have to be legalised according to the Marriage Act?

There are plenty of people who define their relationship as a marriage but have none of those things. Why do you define marriage as needing to have those things when many others define it as not needing those things. Are you saying they are not married? Is your definition of marriage the only one? Who are you to be so arrogant as to know what a marriage should be? Isn't that exactly what you despise in all those who define marriage as being between a man and a woman?

//Why do you define marriage as needing to have those things when many others define it as not needing those things.//

Maybe he doesn't 'define marriage as needing to have those things'. Maybe he just wants them - because they're trendy or traditional or whatever - and is a bit miffed that he's not allowed to have them just because he prefers the romantic company of gentlemen. Because it is almost 2016 and banning people from what they want to do just because they're cock fanciers is so 19th century.

I often fancy a bit of cock myself. Nothing beats a nice roast chook, and I still have lots of awesome duck/turkey jus left over from Christmas. I'd be appalled and outraged if the government redefined Sunday lunch in such a way as to exclude cock. Beef is good and lamb is better, and you can't beat getting some pork on your fork. But cock is cheap, easy and delicious.

But I digress... it isn't my place, anybody else's place to decide what other people want except for the people in question. It is our place to speak or act when people's desires will cause harm, but other than that I firmly believe - and I'm pretty sure J.S. Mill amongst others will back me up on this - that if people's actions don't harm anybody else or infringe on their freedom to do as they please, they shouldn't be curtailed. And if that means they want marriage the way straight people do it, I say good luck to them.

//Is your definition of marriage the only one?//

Excellent question, phanto. What do you think?

“Maybe he just wants them - because they're trendy or traditional or whatever - and is a bit miffed that he's not allowed to have them just because he prefers the romantic company of gentlemen.”

But he wants them from the government and the government shouldn’t give things to people just because they are trendy or traditional. Are we all entitled to have from the government whatever we want for no other reason than trends or tradition?

“Because it is almost 2016 and banning people from what they want to do just because they're cock fanciers is so 19th century.”

You might say the same thing about marriage.

No one is banning them from marriage – just marriage as defined by the government which they do not need and have not given good reason for.

“I often fancy a bit of cock myself.”

Why do you feel the need to tell us this? Are you trying to convince yourself or the rest of us about what you fancy?

“And if that means they want marriage the way straight people do it, I say good luck to them.”

So if you want someone to give you something they should do so providing it does not hurt anyone. Are you saying that do not have to present reasons for wanting it – you simply have to want it. If you want something from the government all you need to say is that it will not harm anyone. That is not a reason why they should give it to you but a statement that in your opinion it will not cause harm.

“//Is your definition of marriage the only one?//

Excellent question, phanto. What do you think?”

What do I think about what?

Dear Eric,

I notice that you have not answered my question:

Assuming that the definition of "marriage" is going to soon be changed - will you or will you not allow those who so wish out of the millions of Australians who are currently "married" according the old and possibly obsolete definition, to opt out and have their marriage de-registered on the grounds that this is not what they originally signed for?

//the government shouldn’t give things to people just because they are trendy or traditional.//

I think you'll find that my statement was 'trendy or traditional or WHATEVER', which pretty much covers all bases. I don't really know or care exactly why gay couples want to married, any more than I do for straight couples. The fact is that some of them do.

//No one is banning them from marriage – just marriage as defined by the government which they do not need and have not given good reason for.//

No one needs marriage and straight people have no better reasons for wanting it than gay people. So by your reasoning, we should just get rid of marriage entirely.

I'm cool with that, but a lot of people won't be. If you're engaged and you've already put down on a deposit on the hall hire for your reception and the government comes along and says they've banned marriage because you don't need it and haven't provided good enough reasons for it, you would be a bit put out. And justifiably so. The fact is that people want to get married, even if they don't need to and can't provide good reason to do so.

People don't need to listen to country and western 'music' either, and there is a no good reason to do so. Sadly, we still allow them to listen to country and western 'music'. We do so because if we ban country and western just because nobody really needs it and we dislike it, what is to stop them banning classical because nobody really needs it either and they dislike it? Society is happiest and healthiest when people are allowed to do what they want to do - within the limits covered in my last post - even if they don't need to do it and don't have clear rational reasons for wanting to do it.
....

continued

If you were to try to run a society on the model you suggested, you'd have to ban all sorts of pointless and unnecessary leisure pursuits - golf, watching TV, discussing stuff on this forum, chess, bird-watching, you name it - they'd all have to go, and nobody would ever have any fun. I don't much like the sound of that.

//Why do you feel the need to tell us this?//

It's called an 'drawing an analogy'. I did it just now with country and western 'music'. I don't know why you're so bothered by the thought of eating cock. They're no good for anything else.

//If you want something from the government all you need to say is that it will not harm anyone.//

No, just claiming it will not cause harm is not sufficient: it needs to actually not cause harm. For instance, claiming that 'crystal energy' can cure cancer has the potential to harm any cancer patients foolish enough to believe it, so it should be banned. Thankfully in the case of marriage the evidence is already in: we know marriage isn't harmful.

Dear Toni,

Nobody, even in our worst nightmares, has ever suggested banning marriage, such that you would be stopped even "If you're engaged and you've already put down on a deposit on the hall hire for your reception".

All that Phanto suggests - with my support, is that government will not be involved in your wedding: you may still dance all night there using any music of your choice and do everything else according to your original plans, the only difference being that you will not need to fill in papers and pay the state for a certificate which means nothing anyway. Obviously you could still obtain similar certificates and even more beautiful ones from other bodies, including churches, non-profit and for-profit organisations that will specialise in those things and may be even cheaper.

ToniLavis:

You seem to be saying that just because people want something they should have it without having to give reasons so long as it does no harm to anyone else.

You can want all you like but you cannot have without the co-operation of the person who has the power to give. Governments have the power to give but they should never give what people want unless good reasons are shown as to why they should give it. Chaos would ensue if they just handed out whatever anyone wanted.

You keep talking about marriage and government sanctioned marriage as if they are one and the same thing. Do you think that a couple should have the freedom to define their relationship as a marriage even though it is not sanctioned by the government? How can anyone stop them doing otherwise? You say that same-sex couples are banned from being married but they are only banned from having a government sanctioned marriage. That is obviously not the only type of marriage.

If same-sex couples want a government sanctioned marriage then they need to ask for it and governments have a responsibility to use their powers only when there are good reasons to do so.

There are no good reasons why governments need to sanction marriage for anyone and that includes same-sex couples. Unless you can provide good reasons why they should sanction marriage then you have no argument to change the current legislation.

If people have already put a deposit on the hall then they can still go ahead and have a non-government sanctioned marriage ceremony. If they presume a right to a government sanctioned marriage then it is their own fault for having presumptions based on a false argument.

“Thankfully in the case of marriage the evidence is already in: we know marriage isn't harmful.”

We don’t know that same-sex government sanctioned marriage is not harmful in Australia because it does not exist

Eric G,

You may have tried but you did not make sense of my comment at all.

One of the techniques those who want to create “same-sex marriage” use is to invent baseless and abusive accusations against their opponents. They may do this because they want to cover up the illogic of their own position or to label those who disagree as beyond humanity or to intimidate them so that they will leave the field of debate or because it is in their natures to do so. Thus we get comments such as “prejudice” “stigma”, “bigot”, “homophobic” and the like.

You say you want to don’t want to create “same-sex marriage”, but you do want to change the definition of marriage in the Marriage Act, the effect of which is to create “same-sex marriage”, something that has never existed in our society. There is an institution in our society that unites a man and a woman that is thousands of years old. It is called a marriage. There are all sorts of other institutions, arrangement sand relationships that are not marriages. Do they all have to be called marriages to have meaning?

The argument for the creation of “same-sex marriage” is rarely made. The argument made is that there is some form of discrimination because something adults may do does not have the same name as something else they may do but don’t want to do. We just have to change the name of something, and if we don’t agree we are prejudiced, bigoted, religious, fundamentalist homophobes who should be silenced by one of the thought police tribunals.

The English language should retain a word that means the union of a man and a woman. Pretending you are discriminated against because a word has one meaning and not another is absurd.

Toni Lavis:

“ It's called an 'drawing an analogy'. I did it just now with country and western 'music'. I don't know why you're so bothered by the thought of eating cock. They're no good for anything else.”

It is not just drawing an analogy it is also giving us information about your own personal sexual likes and dislikes and that is information we really do not need to know. You could have used the same analogy but without telling us what you like. That information adds nothing to your argument nor does it help the discussion in anyway so we can only presume that you have a need to share such information as some kind of cry for help and I think the forums should be used for discussions and not for answering cries for help.

//It is not just drawing an analogy it is also giving us information about your own personal sexual likes and dislikes//

No it isn't you halfwit. 'Cock' is a homograph; a a word that shares the same written form as another word but has a different meaning. In the UK and Ireland adult male chickens over the age of one year are primarily known as cocks, whereas in America, Australia and Canada they are more commonly called roosters. But I'm a massive Anglophile and watch a lot of BBC television and read a lot of British authors; so it is quite reasonable for me to use cock to mean an adult male chicken. Human penises are known as 'cock' in the vernacular sense, but it should have been obvious from the context that that was not the way I meant it. I do find it interesting that that is the conclusion you jump to, and then steadfastly cling to even after it has been pointed out that is an erroneous conclusion. It suggests to me that you have some sort of fascination with penises.

//Unless you can provide good reasons why they should sanction marriage then you have no argument to change the current legislation.//

Unless you can provide good reasons why the Government should sanction marriage, your argument is essentially one in favour of repealing the marriage legislation entirely. You haven't provided good reasons why the government should sanction marriage, so you don't really have an argument not to change the current legislation.

//We don’t know that same-sex government sanctioned marriage is not harmful in Australia because it does not exist//

Alright, how is marriage harmful then phanto? In the general sense, not specific cases where couples split up.

//The English language should retain a word that means the union of a man and a woman.//

Why?

Toni Lavis:

“but it should have been obvious from the context that that was not the way I meant it.”

OK then – no need to defend yourself. It does seem to have touched a nerve though or have I mis-interpreted what you mean by half-wit?

“Unless you can provide good reasons why the Government should sanction marriage, your argument is essentially one in favour of repealing the marriage legislation entirely.”

That should be pretty obvious if I have already said that the government has to have reasons and does not appear to have any.

“so you don't really have an argument not to change the current legislation.”

Do you mean change it or repeal it all together? There is certainly no argument to either maintain it or broaden it.

“//We don’t know that same-sex government sanctioned marriage is not harmful in Australia because it does not exist//

Alright, how is marriage harmful then phanto? In the general sense, not specific cases where couples split up.”

I didn’t say it was harmful I just said that you cannot know for certain what you stated. We cannot know what will happen until if and when same-sex government sanctioned marriage exists. Either way it is irrelevant because the argument about harm is irrelevant. Just because a change in government legislation does no harm does not mean it should be changed. There are other things to consider such as the extent to which it is appropriate for governments to be involved in defining marriage.

//The English language should retain a word that means the union of a man and a woman.//

Why?

I didn’t say that. Must have been someone else.