No your position is not logical, you haven't actually said what the difference is. Do you mean Children?
I'm married to a female and have no interest in having children does that make my marriage less the a couple that has children? What about couple's that adopt is that different kind of married to one that has kids naturally? What about IVF? your on a slippery slope here.

Finally the author goes for that "oh its only 3.5% of the population"... so does that mean we can ignore minority issues from now on? What percentage of the population must an issue effect before we believe it's worth looking into?

This is a moderate and sensible discussion, but it does not solve the problem. It seems to say that we ought to have a Marriage Act and a Same-Sex Marriage Act. That is like saying we should have a Carnivores Act and a Vegetarian Carnivores Act or a Funerals Act and a Living Persons Funerals Act. There is nothing to stop two gays living together, declaring their love and commitment, having a ceremony, having a celebration, getting presents from friends, being recognised as a couple and so on. But the union of a man and a woman is a different thing from the union of a man and a man and of a woman and a woman. Why should the language be deprived of a word that means the union of a man and a woman? Why should husband no longer mean a man with a wife? Why should wife no longer mean a woman with a husband? I have never seen an argument presented to justify any of this.

Marriage grew organically. Gays should be able to come up with a word to describe their unions.

Anyone who does turn up to vote in this plebiscite should be ashamed of themselves for participating in this farcical waste of taxpayer funds.

By participating you are implicitly agreeing with the government that it is worth spending 160 million dollars just so same-sex couples can have the possibility of obtaining a certificate that gives them nothing that they cannot already have except a piece of paper. It is one of the most selfish demands ever made by any group in Australian history and the fact that the government has caved into these demands to the extent of allowing a plebiscite is a disgraceful indictment on our politicians.

There are groups in society with very real needs and genuine demands on the public purse that have far better arguments for money to be spent on them than same-sex couples. Each couple that applies to be married will also be guilty of participating in this wilful waste and should look on their marriage certificate as a sign of their disregard for their fellow taxpayers.

Same-sex couples are not to be disdained because of their homosexuality but because of their utter selfishness and their contempt for their fellow citizens with needs far more worthy than their own.

Interesting piece. I suppose whatever happens with marriage it needs to be arranged in such a way as to drastically increase the Australian birthrate as there is only 3 people per sq. kilometre at the moment, and lots of older people but hardly any young people.

Of course the relationship is different. Firstly, biologically different. One is heterosexual, the other is homosexual. Heterosexual unions have existed for thousands of years, developed as a way of ensuring a mans children were his own, to provide protection for his children and to have heirs to pass his estate on to.
A homosexual Union is a sterile one. All the IVF in world can't produce a child who is the product of both partners. A third person always has to be involved, and in the creation of this child artificially they are condemning a child to be raised without the love and nurturing of at least one biological parent. The International Bill of Rights of the Child says that all children have the right to know, and be raised by their parents,,where possible.
As for childless heterosexual couples, well they still represent the purpose of marriage. The family!

" the question will possibly be something like: "Do you agree to the alteration of the definition of 'marriage' in the Marriage Act 1961 to include same-sex unions?"

Yes or no might be too simple for a lawyer, but it is the best way for everyone else. Simple and to the point. You do or you don't. Nothing else is needed.

You could say 'no' to that question but still be in favour of same-sex marriage.

Marriage does not have to be ratified by the government for it to be a marriage. Many couples call their relationship a marriage without having had any government involvement at all. Who says that only the government has a right to define the meaning of the word 'marriage.

To be or not to be? Aye, that's the rub? And as was the tradition of the times, just asks the completely involved and included Audience for its opinion.

For today's audience, the question is, is it time to stop persecuting folk for having the unmitigated temerity of choosing to be born different!

And should gay bashing in all its forms and guises, [deliberately if covertly withheld service or our best treatment,] still be tolerated in a modern and less ignorant educated society?

And let's be clear! Nobody, but nobody is going to be forced to conduct a marriage ceremony they aren't completely comfortable with!

So just let's cut the BS, and currently the anti equality brigade, is self evidently shoveling it by the ship load?

And indeed, I believe, using the extra time inherent in the very obvious and unnecessary delay; to fight a sanctimonious and hypocritical rearguard action against genuine equal treatment as evidenced in the golden rule and genuine Christian traditions?

With many of those leading the anti equality fray, the very same individuals that were patently implicated, sometimes just through silence, with the cover ups of heinous pedophillia?

With the thundering silence and demonstrable inaction, being interpreted as covert consent by the perpetrators?

Simply put, the only way to get the question resolved on the floor of the house, minus the costly delay, by our elected representatives, is to, however unpalatable, vote Labor!

And necessary, given Malcolm just doesn't seem to have the real leader's stomach/courage of conviction or resolute determination to defy his own back bench?

And all that's needed to allow a conscience vote at the very next sitting!

And I dare say his fribbling sycophantic dithering, the reason his personal (short lived) popularity, is moving south and at terminal velocity?

I mean, the gay community may only number around 10% of us, but they all have mums and dads, possibly brothers and sisters; or aunts and uncles; and friends and sympathisers in the straight community.

Many of them uncommitted swinging voters growing impatient with the hugely costly and entirely unnecessary delaying tactics!?
Rhrosty.

You speak of equality Rhrosty, what of the right to be recognised as different? Must I be forced to be the same as every other man or woman, can i not choose what my own relationship is called without somebody else taking that right from me?

John de Meyrick: one should always question the question, because a question can be formulated in a way that predisposes the answer.

You are so right. The Questions are usually so convoluted that it's extremely hard to intemperate them. Two or three paragraphs where one sentence would do.

John de Meyrick: "Do you agree to the alteration of the definition of 'marriage' in the Marriage Act 1961 to include same-sex unions?"

Still much to wordy. "Do you agree with Gay Marriage? Yes/No."

ttn: Yes or no might be too simple for a lawyer.

Damm right. There's no money in it for them.

Rhosty: Simply put, the only way to get the question resolved on the floor of the house,

That answer only satisfies the trendy MP's not the General population. What are the GLTB afraid of? They claim that the Majority of Australian's are for the ratification of Gay Marriage. So let's find out for sure.

For any Court to find a plebiscite not necessary would be a usurping of the power to alter the constitution.
The colonies called on the UK to for a Federal Constitution , agreeing to give Federal Parliament power to legislate on certain subjects including marriage. There was absolutely no doubt in 1901 what marriage meant when sodomy was a serious offence.

Any change without a plebiscite would breach, the division of powers rule, the basis of democracy- judges interpret to law not make it. Parliament makes the law on subjects given them by the constitution.

State legislation (e.g.NSW Personal Relationship Act) gives gay couples the same rights on a break up as are held by married couples.

Contrary to what "Cobber the hound" says this is all about children.

Let gays call their relationship "marriage". Let churches toll bells and clean up confetti all they want to.AS an atheist I do not care about those symbols. Monogamy, however, as the basic building block of society is vital.

A procreative capable couple ( and no others ) should be able to able to register with the Tax Office as a couple, and pay tax at twice the amount payable on half their joint income after a deduction of a fixed amount for each child they have.

We would then recognise that the First World is made up of States which have institutionalised monogamy as the basic building block of their society either by expressly adopting that building block or it being inherent in the Judeo-Christian heritage.

The First World provides proper nurture and education of children to bring them to the maximum of their potential.

It is that maximum potential which has produced all innovations and inventions that has multiplied the productivity of mankind by thousands to support the present population of the world. Without those inventions and innovations 95% of the world population would not exist for the lack of the means to produce and distribute the necessary food and shelter to sustain them.

Fiddling about with definitions to make a few people feel "normal" is playing with fire.

The article and all responses only beg the question what government is doing registering private sexual relationships in the first place.

A lot of the confusion on all sides in this debate is the moral confusion spread throughout the population by the common belief that marriage is something that government does to the spouses. This belief is simply mistaken and not even the government has ever claimed that it's true. The governmental registration of a marriage does not create the marriage. It registers a pre-existing marriage, brought into being by the spouses' exchange of vows.

Not only that, but the registration does not even make any significant difference to the rights of the parties, because of the effect of the de facto marriage legislation.

Not only that, but not even the government will accepts its own certificate of marriage as evidence of the existence of the marriage.

I have never found anyone who can explain what difference registration of same-sex unions would make in terms of substantive rights.

But *if* the purpose of the whole exercise is substantive equality rights, rather than symbolic grandstanding, then there's no reason why those deficits can't be supplied in their own right, for example by amendment to the law on superannuation or whatever. It doesn't require changing the definition of marriage.

And if the purpose of the whole exercise is marriage equality as a principle, then why are much worse-off other forms of sexuality excluded, for example, the polyamorous?

Gay marriage is not illegal at present, never has been, and registration does not constitute marriage.

But just the speech-act of exchanging polyamorous vows is a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment, even if the couple make no attempt to register it.

If the true agenda in this debate is really marriage equality without discrimination on grounds of sexual preference, surely the decriminalisation of polyamorous marriage is a much more urgent and important issue of public policy and human rights, than whether already-legal homosexual unions can be *registered to the government* with no improvements in their substantive rights?

Right, Cobber?

JKJ:

A very good argument!

The real agenda is not marriage equality but sexuality equality. It is an attempt to try and show that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality. Homosexual people who are insecure about the equality of the 'sexualities' will strive to find some authority to give credence to their situation. It is the argument from authority.

If same-sex marriage is included in the definition by the government then they can point any gainsayers to the law of the Marriage Act. If the government says homosexuality is ok then it must be ok.

If they were truly secure in their homosexuality there would be no need to try and get the law changed since there can be no other benefit. The government is pandering to this insecurity and they should be ashamed of doing so.

Thankyou for the offer to draft questions.

Adhering to the http://www.uqu.com.au/blog-view/what-does-lgbtiq-mean-29 definition of LGBTIQQ.

QUESTION 1.

Should there be positive, compulsory, discrimination and rights in all spheres (including Company Boards and Senate Representation) for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, Intersex, "Queer" and Questioning persons?

QUESTION 2.

In SCHOOLS should there be any excuse whatsoever for beings to avoid Official State Imposed - Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, Intersex, "Queer" and Questioning - classes?

Dear Jardine,

Is it so that exchanging polyamorous vows is criminal in Australia?
It is shocking but I was not aware of it - could you please tell us what law(s) are involved?

Otherwise in all respects I am with Phanto: individual relationships are none of the government's business.

No, I do not agree that those who want to make children should receive tax or any other benefits - on the contrary, they should incur the full costs for their procreative hobby themselves.

If there is to be a plebiscite and the cost is there anyway, then at least it should include many other and far more important questions in many areas of life.

The question is simple and easy: that the marriage act be amended from "one man and one woman" to "any two consenting adults". All other legislation referencing "man and wife" to be read as applying to all married couples. The End.

Doug Pollard

Why two?

Yuyutsu
Yes. The Crimes Act, NSW, and corresponding legislation in other states.

The missing piece of intelligence that is needed to make sense of the whole debate is that the Marriage Acts were not enacted until the nineteenth century. But marriage has been recognised in the English common law for many many centuries, and in society for many millenia, before that.

I haven't specifically looked it up, but the common law recognition of marriage and criminalisation of bigamy, would go way back into the middle ages, I mean at least 12th century.

And the common law in turn received its standards from the pre-existing laws and customs of the people of Britain. So it probably goes back literally to the dark ages, owing to influence of the Christian religion on the customs of the people, and the formation and administration of law during those ages.

The Marriage Act took the definition of marriage from the common law. It added additional requirements as a precondition of registration, as to notice, qualification of celebrants, witnesses, registration, and so on.

But registration maketh not the marriage, I say. A couple who exchange marriage vows, but don't comply with the additional requirements of the Act for registration, will still be married in fact, in law, in conscience and faith, in ethics, and in religion. It's still a legal marriage. It's just that it's not a *statutory* law marriage: it's a common law marriage.

Both the criminal law and the Marriage Act continue to take the common law definition as their point of departure.

Many of the Coalition politicians have stated that they are going to ignore the result of the 160 million plebiscite and vote no to same-sex marriage. That is why Coalition politicians want a plebiscite and not a referendum, its so they can easily ignore the result in favour of marriage equality.

Dear Jardine,

Thank you, but I searched the Crimes Act, NSW and found no such offence. There was no mention of vows anywhere.

If perhaps you refer to bigamy, I believe that it does not include unregistered marriages. As far as the authorities are concerned, nothing except what they themselves conduct (or a foreign country according to its own laws) constitutes marriage. They are wrong of course, but that's the legal situation.

I received the advice that any celebrant or priest, whether registered by the state to conduct marriages or otherwise, commits no offence if they conduct a wedding without registering it or informing the authorities, so long as s/he does not during that ceremony utter the words 'legal' or 'legally', so this is clearly not a "legal marriage". As long as the authorities are concerned, it simply "didn't happen". I believe this to include not only same-sex marriages but also marriages between several people and/or with other animals or objects.

I remain annoyed that this spineless Government are not deciding this issue for themselves, as they were elected to do.

They all should be allowed a conscience vote and decide on this marriage act issue as part of their normal duties, rather than spending so much money on a plebiscite that no one wants.

Let gay couples marry for goodness sake, as it is all becoming too boring now.
Nothing will change if they are allowed to marry, so get over it !

Another critical question that needs an answer in the context of this plebiscite is 'What should school children be taught about homosexuality?' - see
http://cpds.apana.org.au/Teams/Articles/child_abuse.htm#4_2_16

Suseonline:

“Let gay couples marry for goodness sake, as it is all becoming too boring now.
Nothing will change if they are allowed to marry, so get over it !”

So same-sex couples cannot get a government approved marriage. So what! Get over it! Nothing is going to change if they get that certificate. Why don’t they just get on with their lives and stop wasting the politicians’ time and our money? Their constant whinging is getting boring.

What should children be taught about homosexuality? That it is part of the normal spectrum of human sexuality, always has been, always will be. Inclusive sex and relationship ed covering the whole spectrum should be taught in all schools as part of the national curriculum. Given what we know about child development, this should begin at age four or five, in an age appropriate manner of course, as this is when sexual feelings first begin to manifest, children start to become curious about their bodies and those of others. And they need to be taught e.g., what is and in not appropriate behaviour during physical play, what parts of the body are considered private etc.

SOL: on a plebiscite that no one wants.

Who says, "No one wants it." I do & I'm sure the Government wouldn't have put the Question to a Plebiscite if there wasn't a call from the Public to do so.

I wonder why the GLTB is so against the Plebiscite. They are always banging on about how the Majority of Australians back them. Let's put it to the Test.

Dougie: children start to become curious about their bodies and those of others. And they need to be taught e.g., what is and in not appropriate behaviour during physical play, what parts of the body are considered private etc.

Who amongst us didn't play Mommy & Daddies or Doctors & Nurses when they were this age? I certainly did & my children did. Everyone I ever spoken to has said they caught their children having "Show & Tell."

The worst thing you can do is to make a big fuss when you catch them. They don't know the reason why they're in trouble. Screaming at them will only instill guilt into their little minds & that grows into mental health issues later on in life. That's what must have happened to a few on here, I think. ;-)

Prebs, That's the dumbest obfuscation I've seen posted thus far.

I'm at loss to understand how marriage equality removes any element of choice from you, save the ability of some to deliberately disadvantage others who chose to be born different!

I mean, when we included the Aboriginal community in the electoral rolls and gave them the right to vote, was any other voter, or white supremacist prevented from exercising their democratic right or personal choice!? Which seems to be the nub of your argument, with regard to marriage equality?

There's all this talk of an extremely costly plebiscite and entirely unnecessary, given the very next election can be used to resolve the question according to the will of the people. And in a few short months not years, given we ever actually get a binding plebiscite?

Some folks could be forgiven for believing that power and its retention is far more important to the P.M. than honor?

Remember the never ever, dead buried and cremated GST; and subsequently rammed down our throats in the face of a polled 87% opposition! And all those non core promises that then allowed our most recalcitrant and autocratic P.M. to carry the day and then tear up former never ever commitments?

And germane to the current discussion, given the current level of community support for equal treatment!?

Let's not wait for the promised plebiscite, but rather make it an election issue! And arguably, given the coalition's history on carved in stone commitments; the only way to guarantee that the will of the people will be actually honored?
Rhrosty.

My point is that making unequal things equal is a foolish endeavour. They are not the same, so why not let them be different? If one provides more benefits than the other then let those who engage in it enjoy those benefits.

I do not support government "handouts" to heterosexual marriages over any other form of human relationship, I personally believe that government handouts (if we need them at all) should be given to the individual, for the individuals sake, rather than discriminating against people who work hard or smart (or both).

An example of my issue about being different. If I and my friends had a red shirt party, and the rule that we set ourselves was that you could only attend the party if you were wearing a red shirt, is it unfair of us to forbid someone entry if they were wearing a blue shirt? Would it be fair for the government to force us to allow blue shirts into our red shirt party? Are we not allowed to have and enjoy our red shirt party according to our love of shirt's red?

I think that if we really cared about equality all marriage legislation would be removed, and then allow people to build the relationships that they want. To the most successful of those relationships may the rewards be received.

JayB, this plebiscite is going to cost a lot of money for something we already know that the majority of the voters agree on. What a waste of money.

This Government should just agree to change the Marriage Act and not let a minority of homophobes and religious nuts call the shots. Just do it....

SOL: we already know that the majority of the voters agree on. What a waste of money.

So you agree with the GLBT that the Majority of Australians want Gay Marriage legalized.

SOL: This Government should just agree to change the Marriage Act and not let a minority of homophobes and religious nuts call the shots. Just do it....

But you & your ilk are afraid to let it be put it to the test. & Why not? Says a lot doesn't it?

Once again the Extremists & their Extreme views on just about everything know that they are wrong but they just won't acknowledge the fact because it's not; PC, Left, Green, GLTB, moslem, In, Polite, Acceptable & so on, & so on, ad infinitem. So Boring.

"....given we ever actually get a binding plebiscite?"

Are plebiscites ever binding?

Doug Pollard:

“What should children be taught about homosexuality? That it is part of the normal spectrum of human sexuality, always has been, always will be.”

Children should be taught that these things are opinions held by some people. They are not facts. There is no evidence whatsoever to support these opinions. If they exist then children should be shown that evidence. When you tell kids that things are true you should show them the evidence. That is education and anything else is indoctrination.

“as this is when sexual feelings first begin to manifest, children start to become curious about their bodies and those of others.”

Being curious about their bodies and those of others is natural but it does not mean that such curiosity is a sexual thing. Why would four or five year olds have sexual feelings when they are incapable of doing anything with them? You have sexual feelings in order to move you to have sex – that is how nature continues the species. Sexual feelings have a purpose and that purpose cannot be fulfilled until you are mature enough which is after puberty.

when the people voted against perverting the word marriage in California a few years back the corrupt court in America over ruled the wishes of the people. The regressives then have the nerve to bang on about those who won't accept the result of the plebiscite as if they will. Seems to me the regressives are afraid people might actually think instead of just voting to promote such a destructive lifestyle.

phanto, you really don't know anything abut children's sexual development, do you? Here's some facts to help you http://kidshealth.org/en/parents/development.html

Apparently phanto doesn't know about any of the research either.

<<There is no evidence whatsoever to support [the idea that homosexuality is a part of the normal spectrum of human sexuality].>>

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=sexual+fluidity+and+identity&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5

Doug Pollard: phanto, you really don't know anything abut children's sexual development, do you? Here's some facts to help you http://kidshealth.org/en/parents/development.html

Says just what I posted earlier. It's a no brainer. It's only the over protective & people with their own Sexual hang-ups that over react.

Doug Pollard:

“Here's some facts to help you http://kidshealth.org/en/parents/development.html”

I don’t have a problem with any of that but there is a difference between exploring one’s body and having sexual feelings. Sexual feelings are feelings which propel you towards the opposite sex. You find someone attractive and you become aroused to the point where you are ready for sex. You want to have sex. I don’t think four year olds with an erection want to have sex. They might become aroused because of their auto stimulation but that is different than being aroused at the sight of a sexy member of the opposite sex. The normal state is to be not aroused unless there is some stimulation and I think that children are not aroused by members of the opposite sex so it is a different dynamic altogether than auto stimulation.

Marriage between a man and a women can never be “equalled” by any other relationship and the plebiscite should never be couched in terms of equality.
In this discussion about what marriage represents, we must never lose sight of the fact that the essential difference between homosexual unions and heterosexual unions is that heterosexual unions provide for the continuation of the human race in their ability to beget children. This is the intrinsic and unique nature of heterosexual unions - and this uniqueness is recognized in, and as , the institution of marriage.
If the intrinsic nature of marriage is not about children and only about the relationship between any two people why then is marriage a social institution in which the govt takes particular interest ?
Govts do not, and should not, have any interest in personal love relationships. Govts take an interest in marriage because marriage is a commitment of a man and women who together beget and raise the offspring of their natural union . Such a relationship provides the very best support for the next generation of human beings who will be the continuation of the society into the future and who will provide the important and ongoing structure of biologically connected families as part of a strong social fabric.
Heterosexual defacto couples, too, still have that same unique ability to beget the next generation of our society and they are in a relationship of mutual commitment to each other and to the children of their union . That is why the Govt also supports them.
The push to decouple children from the concept of marriage is an attempt to devalue traditional marriage and it’s essential gift to society -the ability to create new life and a new generation, an ability which gay couples can never emulate.
Homosexual and Lesbian couples can never together participate in the creation of “their” child – therefore they should never be part of the institution called marriage.
Their union is different – and, if necessary, should be called something different. It is not marriage.

Chris I agree with your view however there is no chance in hell these queers are going to accept anything less than the word marriage, because to them it's all about equality.

I feel this is a situation where a compromise is needed and I suggest we add a clause to the marriage act that those being wed can chose from either 'a union between a man and a woman', or 'a union between two people'.

Now if they chose the latter then their marriage has a prefix like SS for example, which gives them the right to marry and protects the rights of normal people like you and I.

BUT! and this is a huge but, the queers are seeking equality rather than just the right to marry and this is a fight that will go on for ever and cost the tax payers billions, so I doubt the queers would accept such a compromise.

Personally, I am against gay marriage and I am most certainly against children being raised in same sex households if for no other reason than in an attempt to avoid preventable bullying.

Sadly, we have gone from a prosperous lucky country into a country that wastes so much money on issues that involve so few within the community from gay marriage, to avoidable domestic violence and indigenous waste to name just a few, and I seriously doubt many of our forefathers who paid the ultimate sacrifice to pave the way for this great nation would have done so so willingly had they known where we were headed.

Welcome to the land of wasted opportunities.

Of course it's about equality: G.A.Y. = Good As You. Our lives and our relationships should be respected, honoured and celebrated just as yours are. That's not difficult, is it? My husband and I have been together for 23 years, longer than more than half of all heterosexual marriages. Yet we cannot yet safely walk the street holding hands, or exchange a goodbye kiss at the airport, or snuggle up to one another in the pub. That is wrong. Marriage is the ultimate symbol that we are every bit as good as anyone else and should be treated as such. Just remember, heterosexuality is not normal, just very common. Normal natural mammalian sexuality, as science has shown, stretches across a spectrum embracing gay, straight, varying degrees of bisexuality, rather as a field contains many diverse species of plants and animals. If heterosexuality were the only norm, all fields would contain only one species - grass - and nothing else. That's a lawn, which is totally unnatural, artificial, and deliberately created by humans.

Dear Flowertime,

<<heterosexual unions provide for the continuation of the human race>>

Yes, but is this a good thing?

<<The push to decouple children from the concept of marriage is an attempt to devalue traditional marriage>>

What devalues traditional marriage is the fact that it was turned into a "legal" instrument with legal implications.

<<Homosexual and Lesbian couples can never together participate in the creation of “their” child>>

I have a relative who did and still does exactly that. See http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16259#283589

---

Dear Rehctub,

<<I feel this is a situation where a compromise is needed>>

This same equality which the speakers for homosexuals desire can be achieved by completely repealing the Marriage Act. Otherwise, if a compromise is needed, then let homosexuals marry as they please, but also allow those who are already "married" by the former definition become unmarried (without having to separate for a year), since this is not the deal they signed for.

---

Dear Doug,

Nobody else has the right to demand that others respect, honour and celebrate their life and relationships. What makes you believe that you are better than others in this regard?

Doug, while im not suggesting you gays are any less equal to myself, as a person, in my eyes your marriage (if you do get it) will never be equal to mine, and it is this non acceptance from people like myself that will continue to drive you and your queer mates nuts.

The simple solution is for your lot to either find another word, or create either a separate act or add a clause to the existing, but changing the act to your liking is taking something away from me that I hold in high regard.