Stuart,

I pity you for being such a delicate flower that you need the whole of Australia to be made a "safe space" for you by blocking any discussion that makes you uncomfortable.

If you had to choose between a Plebiscite in Feb 2017 and legislation in April 2017 or waiting until 2019 or 2022, which would you pick?

I think the author is already creating a "segregated" system by labeling people "straights" as he does in this article.

I do not want to be given a label by a homosexual, and they can keep their labeling for themselves

With all the references to america in this article, maybe the author should go and live in america, and stay there.

As for Bill Shorten and Malcolm Turnbull, 89 minutes into the first sitting of Parliament and the members of the Labor party and the Liberal party were was hurling abuse at each other.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/christopher-pyne-and-the-parliamentary-art-of-talking-through-his-paper-hat-20160831-gr5d64.html

But this was acceptable, as long as the person being abused is not homosexual.

But here is a picture of a homosexual being brutalized by police officers in Sydney.

http://cdn.scahw.com.au/imagevaultfiles/id_52860/cf_8/sydney-mardi-gras-2011_13.jpg

And here is a picture of a group of thugs who are out to hunt down homosexuals in Sydney

http://www.elindependiente.mx/galerias/mardi_gras_gay2_04032013.JPG

And here is a picture of a lesbian who has been forced to wear a horribly grotesque piece of apparatus on her face.

http://www2.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Sydney+Gay+Lesbian+Mardi+Gras+Parade+NLuuI11h8lQl.jpg

So this is the suppression and oppression of homosexuals in Australia?

Well done "interactive", now I will go read the article and get back to you!

Personally I couldn't care less if you want to get married.
Go ahead, do whatever you want, you're most likely going to anyway.
But I'll oppose marriage equality anyway because of all the 'mission creep' towards the kids.

First it will be marriage. Fine.. whatever..
But then you'll want to adopt a kid and indoctrinate them that your lifestyle is normal. NO
And you'll want to keep pushing to normalise homosexuality with a token queer on every TV show. NO
And you'll keep pushing the gay agenda onto heterosexual families in schools. NO
Meetups in public toilets for sex. NO

Private life has the right to be lived without interference.
However "marriage" , like "motor car" has a certain meaning. A lock and key can "marry" but not 2 keys ( except twins , which is probably an incestuous marrying - dunno about male twins).
A man's best friend is his dog , male or bitch.

Stuart

The act of marriage is the exchange of vows, not the signing of the register.

You have the same right to marry as heterosexuals; always have had.

What you can't do is get the government to *register* your sexual relationship.

(Why you would want to, and what business it is of government's, is beyond me.)

By the way, do you support marriage equality for polyamorous? Are you prepared to fight for them in a pitched battle? If not, then you're not for marriage equality and don't say you are.

The discussion of "marriage equality" for homosexuals is all too inadequate. It fails to address the real underlying issue, which is, why should government be registering sexual relationships in the first place?

What's your answer?

I think the Marriage Act, the Family Law Act, and the de facto relationships legislation should all be repealed, as the starting point. The central planning of sexual relationships is just as flawed, dysfunctional and illegitimate as the central planning of anything else, being based on a flawed view of human society.

There is no justification for what you are suggesting, because governmental registration of sexual relationships either should not exist in the first place, or should be extended to any consensual sexual relationship. Your rationale does not make sense, and is only seeking for yourself an unjust exclusive privilege the exclusivity and injustice of which you decry in others.

The fact is, you don't want a plebiscite because you know very well the majority of Australians don't agree with you. Of course this only begs the question why a majority should decide on matters of sexuality. But this applies equally to all questions of sexuality, not just yours. Why should yours become legal, and others' continue to be illegal?

It seems that you want two things. You want same-sex marriage and you want to get it without being hurt.

You have as much chance of getting SSM as anyone else in a democracy has of achieving their goal. You put forth your case, lobby the appropriate people, and it goes to a vote. This would happen with any case put forward. One of the options in a democracy is to hold a people's vote. When you present your case you do so knowing that this is one of the options. By accepting the principles of a democracy you also accept that your issue may be decided by a people's vote.

Nowhere in amongst those principles of democracy is there a guarantee that you will not be hurt in any part of the process. The process has to be such that it is equally fair to all concerned and a plebiscite is equally fair to all concerned. The democratic principles give everyone the chance to speak their mind. it does not put caveats on what you can say during the debate.

If you do not like what is said to you then you should appeal to any laws that we have in place which can control what is said in debates. Similarly if you get bashed or have acid poured into your drink or your livelihood is threatened etc. then we have laws which are there to protect you. You are only entitled to the same protections as everyone else though and not more protection because you are homosexual.

Crying victim is very manipulative. You have all the protections that anyone can expect in our society so you are no more a victim than anyone else who tries to change legislation. You want the politicians to decide this issue not because it is a better method of applying the principles of democracy but because you are afraid of being hurt. You want the government to give you what no one is entitled to. You want to privileged treatment because you are homosexual. This is 'slippery slope' stuff.

Whatever happens the next big thing in marriage needs to be getting rid of the no fault divorce approach. Family breakdown costs about 14 billion a year which could be spent on schools, hospitals, churches, etc.

You probably have to go overseas if you want to behead someone too, & get away with it.

Why, because the majority of Australians don't want it here.

Some clergy are married to the Church in promiscuity with child-adoption. Architecturally a church steeple and curving doorways are trans gender.

You are not "forced" to do anything. You are part of 1% of Australians who live beyond and outside of normality. Fine. You are able do that in a tolerant society without being jailed, as homsexuals once were; you are in no danger of being stoned or put to death in gruesome ways as you would be in some societies. You and your partner can live in peace, have the exactly the same legal property and inheritance rights as heterosexual, de facto couples. Stop whinging.

There are many people like you who accept that marriage is between a man and a woman, they do not want to 'marry' their partners. They couldn't care less about marriage. More and more heterosexual couples are now raising well adjusted, happy families, without marriage; many into a second relationship avoiding the travails of an unsuccessful previous marriage. Get over it: get on with your life.

And, there is always the chance that you are not who you claim to be, merely another leftist activist attacking society by having a kick at the SSM football. No matter what, you are not deserving of sympathy.

When you demand equality for you and your partner I presume you want equality for everyone, not just gay people.
As such, I am sure you are happy with adult siblings having the right to marry, or a parent marrying a child. And naturally you support the right of a group of people to marry, because after all, they love each other and should have the same rights as you and everyone else.
See, it's simple. We will give every adult the right to marry who they please and everyone will be happy.
Right?

Not poker machines. I would never marry a poker machine

People who love and are committed to each other should be free to marry!

We remain one of the few advanced "enlightened" countries where this is not legally permitted! Catholic Ireland overwhelmingly voted in favor. And one of the most conservative countries, the USA got over themselves and just got it done. Ditto England, Canada and our cousins across the ditch New Zealand!

We are held hostage by a tiny vocal minority with both influence and power! Intrangesent recalcitrants with delusions of grandeur, stand in the way of progressive progress?

And can be guaranteed to try every dirty mean minded trick to deny the expressed will of the people?

This is where the gay community need to become activists inside their own forewarned group of family and friends, to get them to ignore the outrageous stone age activation allegations and abuse from the troglytes, who believe that your sexual bias is something you chose!

That's why we need to emulate Ireland's example of family and friends activism.

Speaking as a proud parent, I would never deny any of my kids their right to happiness on the basis of a proven wrong belief!

To that end and sad commentary, we need a binding plebiscite and tolerate all of the reviling rubbish and hateful homophobia from mostly, the still in the closet quarter? And water off a duck's back, however hurtful!

If a plebiscite is somehow prevented or postponed? Those archaic anachronisms responsible, will be severely punished at the next poll that really counts? Even where they have an 11th hour change of heart or conversion months out from the next election?

The very successful Irish model relied on just folks getting a yes commitment from family or friends! And based on the simple proposition, would you really actually act to prevent my happiness? A must do by every gay person!

Remember it's not compulsory nor contagious! Nor will any celebrant be obliged to act against his or her conscience!
Alan B.

Let's just have it all done with and get on with life...like continually saying "Sorry" for something done centuries ago. Will people in 2116 be saying "Sorry" or will we have moved on...probably not I suspect.

Monty Python had it sussed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c

Stuart you sound like you've had a pretty tough time of it, over the years with your homosexuality. Initially being forced to conceal it, for fear of being physically assaulted, ridiculed, even being vocationally discriminated against because of it ? And now you've finally come through all of that emotional persecution, and you still feel you've been marginalised, over this same sex marriage issue. Because of the apparent vacillation over any agreement between our two main Political Parties, whether to have a plebiscite or a parliamentary political vote.

If you were to travel abroad to marry, upon your return it would not carry the weight of law back here ? My only thoughts Stuart, you 'WILL' ultimately be permitted to marry your long term 'same sex' partner, the only question is when, and how that 'permission' will occur? Decided by a plebiscite, or by a parliamentary vote ! The only question as I indicated above, is when ! Like most things worthwhile Stuart, patience. An enormous amount of patience.

In conclusion though I have absolutely no truck with male homosexual behaviour, I have even less for anything approaching persecution of homosexuals or sodomy, provided it's practiced in private, and those who engage in that behaviour do not attempt to coerce, compel or intimidate others in engaging in such activity, against their will.

Alan B.:

They are free to marry just not have a marriage licence from the government - there is a difference.

If we change our legislation just because other countries have it does not say much for our critical faculties as a country. We would just be sheep.

"We are held hostage by a tiny vocal minority with both influence and power! Intrangesent recalcitrants with delusions of grandeur, stand in the way of progressive progress?"

If you have a problem with who has the power then you had your chance to do something about it at the last election so quit your childish whinging.

"This is where the gay community need to become activists inside their own forewarned group of family and friends, to get them to ignore the outrageous stone age activation allegations and abuse from the troglytes"

Why do you feel the need to tell them what they should do? That is very patronising. Don't you think they are capable of working it out for themselves?

"Speaking as a proud parent, I would never deny any of my kids their right to happiness on the basis of a proven wrong belief!"

Their happiness is not really in your hands either way. How would you stop them even if you wanted to?

"Those archaic anachronisms responsible, will be severely punished at the next poll that really counts?"

You think same-sex marriage is the only issue people care about when they vote?

"The very successful Irish model relied on just folks getting a yes commitment from family or friends! And based on the simple proposition, would you really actually act to prevent my happiness? A must do by every gay person!"

What value is there in getting your family and friends to agree with you? They might be emotionally dependent on you and will do whatever you ask. Why not focus on logical arguments and then you will know that SSM has been accepted for the right reasons?

The author and those of like mind should never have to leave the country in order to get married. A lack of decisive leadership in our elected members of parliament is too blame for not treating these people as human beings with all the rights and privileges attached to those who are of not of like mind for same sex relations leading to marriage.

It's a power and control thing, those who oppose same sex marriage are only trying to control the lives of other individual consenting adults who have a preference for same sex relations.

And to those so called "christians" who love to cherry pick passages from the bible to justify their stance about marriage being between a man and a woman, it doesn't! it does not anywhere clearly state that it is ONLY between a man and a woman. Don't believe me? feel free to prove me wrong on this one.

Hey, Alan. How do your reconcile your allegations of abuse from anti-SSM people with your own abuse of us, using epithets such as 'homophobe' and 'troglodyte'? Such self-admitted, publicly displayed hypocrisy is not a good debating tool.

Who on this site do you believe 'fears' homsexuals? That's what a phobia means - fear. Perhaps I missed something, but who on this site do you believe has expressed any hatred for, or dislike of homsexuals as human beings? Who on this site do you believe to be a troglodyte - a cave dweller?

Why do you believe your views are so precarious and fragile that they will not stand honest criticism? You and others of your obvious political bent are always yelling (metaphorically) shutup! to anyone who doesn't hold the same views as you do.

Everybody has a right to an opinion on anything. But, when you start trying to block other people from expressing their opinions by using the same sort of abuse as you accuse them of using, you lose all credibility.

Gosh, Stuart, homosexuals themselves must be the very worst 'abusers' of gays, they being adamantly opposed to and deriding marriage as the State and religious manacles of heterosexuals.

It is only very recently that Gay Pride activists and the real power behind 'gay marriage', the sly leftist 'Progressives' aka Fabians aka International Socialists, discovered the lack of 'gay marriage' as a problem for the homosexual community that had previously relished the ability to make and break relationships as they chose and without State intervention. Effective use of the Hegelian Paradigm there by the clever, manipulative Fabians.

Tell the truth now, there will be some 'show marriages' mainly of lesbians, most separating very soon after the TV lamps have faded (Netherlands and NZ experiences). But the activists who have been getting adrenaline (and some meaning in their lives) out of making 'authority' and 'society' bend over to their will, will be finding more ways to protest, as serial activists do.

As for the International Socialists, those self-declared 'Wolves in Sheep's Clothing' Fabians, they were always out for something to bludgeon 'conservative society' and for a time the gays were useful idiots.

Alan B,

"The little girl was whisked away to her "intended parents" before Ekaterine, the 32-year-old surrogate and herself a mother of two, had a chance to see her".

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11425822

Seems very similar to a factory farm, where a newborn calf is taken from the mother cow before they can bond.

Because places such as america have same-sex marriage means nothing at all.

america also allows surrogacy, which does not mean that Australia should automatically allow surrogacy.

america is also not a signatory to the International Criminal Court, which means that america can bomb any country it wants (and it does).

However, this does not mean that Australia should stop being a signatory to the International Criminal Court as well.

Rojama and the Bible:
game on. Matt 19.3-9. 1 Cor 6.9.
There is no description of approved homosexuals. Homosexual marriage is never mentioned.

Phanto: I didn't invent the surprisingly successful Irish model, just avocate emulating it! Particularly in view of the fact that family and friends know who you are and that your sexual bias was conferred by nature rather than misguided personal choice!

The Irish model was successful because of those aforementioned facts and a reluctance on the part of family and intimate friends to discriminate or persecute you just for being what you are! THat's all I'm advocating!

As for the bible, not everything claimed by the bible is necessarily true or correct!

I don't believe Jonah was swallowed and lived in the belly of a whale for forty days, that Joshua blew down the walls of Jericho with a mouth blown trumpet or that a normal human man could wander the desert for forty days and forty nights without food or water! And pushing the absolute limits with just water!

Deserts are so labeled because of the usual lack of potable water, and that any existing water holes ruotinely frequented by defecating animals, who invariably foul the water, which if drunk will make a human male very sick and dehydrated, one of the major killers of children in third world countries

In order to believe any of that stone age storytelling, it is necessary to completely suspend credulity!

I believe a lot of what is gospel just reflects the customs and social mores of the writers at the time of writing! And given it in part seems to approve of slavery? Just as capable of other, inculcated from birth, erroneous belief in other areas as well? That being so simply not the word of God!?

Falsely believing something just doesn't make it true or correct especially if confounded by the facts!

If a kind and gentle unmarried Jesus walked among us today, with his preference for male company the so called Christian lobby would automatically label him a homosexual? Particularly, given his habitual hangouts seemed to be bars and taverns and the company of prostitutes? Today's equivalent probably being gay bars?
Alan B.

Allan B.

Can't answer my questions? Not surprising.

I very much agree with the author:

"clearly a vote in the Parliament is the way to go"

And I'd add "just one vote in Parliament". Not a two vote responsibility avoiding Parliamentary circus.

Our over-paid, responsibility ducking Parliamentarians, seem to advocate:

1. Holding a vote in Parliament to legally hold a Plebiscite

2. Hold a Plebiscite which may, or may not, influence

3. Holding another vote in Parliament...

Jardine K. Jardine, made the point early, The government needs to get out of attempts to regulate/register sexual relationships (I'll include the proviso - between consenting adult humans).

That point seems to have been ignored. Government regulation of "marriage" appears to achieve no significant legal outcomes other than some extra costs if one or both of the parties involved decide to end the relationship.

There are no direct legal penalties for breaching the basic conditions that the relationship was started under (typically fidelity, for better and for worse type stuff). There is no legal requirement to procreate, no legal requirement to engage in sexual activity with any regularity, not even a requirement to live together. There is very little difference in practical terms if the law does get involved to a de-facto relationship except that a married "couple" mostly know when the marriage became a marriage, the de-facto relationship status is less clear.

There is no viable reason for the government to be there.

If there is some important social outcome requiring a legal framework then the law should start reflecting those reasons. Alternatively if we do think the feel good value of government recognition is important then open it up to any nominated relationship between two or more consenting adults. Not just same sex but as others have pointed out hat includes pluralistic and possibly other scenarios that I've not considered.

As it stands the current marriage laws are a toothless artefact with no real meaning that need either disposal or a significant overhaul (and not just tacking on one extra category of eligibility).

R0bert

Alan B.:

"Phanto: I didn't invent the surprisingly successful Irish model, just avocate emulating it! Particularly in view of the fact that family and friends know who you are and that your sexual bias was conferred by nature rather than misguided personal choice!"

It is not a very good reason to vote in favour of SSM. The vote should be successful because it is logical. Friends and family should vote for it because it is reasonable and not because of any emotional attachments to homosexual people.

The vote may have been successful in Ireland but there is no way you could tell whether it was as a result of the behaviour you are advocating. It may well have been successful because most people thought it was reasonable.

Phanto: Family and intimate friends have a much better chance of knowing who you are! Rather than hostile strangers who condemn you for just being who you are!

And that's why I believe the gay community have the right of friend and family to ask and require their real friends to side with them!

But particularly when the required legislation simply does not impinge on any other or the rights in law!

All the anti gay community want, is to prohibit the private behavior of consenting adults, who after all not asking for special treatment, just the "human" rights the straight community take for granted for themselves!

And just that, not softening our stand on pedophilia, criminals who in my view should be taken out and shot? Moreover, I have nosympathy for unnatural beastialty, which is entirely unrelated!

I hope my gay friends, that I've known all my life, will one day be able to marry and raise children who will never ever be able to be indoctrinated to become gay; any more than any teacher was able by any means to make left handed person to become right handed!

I mean who among us would prohibit marriage between two left handed people? Nobody! Right? because they were born that way and that would just be immoral discrimination against folks for daring to be born different!

I intend to vote to extend the right we take as our birthright to others, even those daring to be born different!
I rest my case! Alan B.

Alan B

Under same-sex marriage laws, parents can be under total control by the state.

"Parents can expect state interference when it comes to moral values, parenting, and education—and not just in school. The state has access into your home to supervise you as the parent, to judge your suitability. And if the state doesn’t like what you are teaching your children, the state will attempt to remove them from your home"

"If your beliefs, values, and political opinions are different from the state’s, you risk losing your professional license, job, or business, and even your children."

http://www.newfeminism.co/2015/07/warning-from-canada/

I think AllanB consistently pushes forward an army of straw men, in his quest for the ultimate prize of normalising homosexuality. He consistently fails to recognise, either deliberately or through ignorance, homosexuality as abstract behaviour!

The question is NOT; Will homosexuals be better protected from discrimination in society, by the granting of equal rights at the alter, but more critically, what will be the damage to a NORMAL society, by granting the concession.

Hey interactive,
An era where children are now owned by the state and parents are mere wards.

"what will be the damage to a NORMAL society, by granting the concession"

A couple of points.
- What's the definition of a "NORMAL society" in regard to marriage. Arranged by parents? Till death do us part? Add on the questions but the modern western fall in love and marry story is not normal in terms of human history and does not appear to have been a resounding success in terms of stability, happiness, social impact etc.
- Why the assumption that damage is the only factor to be considered? What if there are benefits. From my perspective the less social pressure on same sex attracted people to form marriage like relationships with people of the opposite sex the better for society. How much harm has been done throughout history to both same sex attracted people and those they have married by social pressure that have sought to pressure same sex attracted people to behave "normally".

R0bert

Alan B
"pedophilia, criminals who in my view should be taken out and shot?"

Meaning what? Consensual sex under the age of 18?

Armchair Critic

Just a gentle reminder if I may.

You should be more careful with use of the word "parent".

Under the Canadian system, you would have to use the term "legal parent", as the word "parent" infers "natural parent", which should not be used anymore.

http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/LegislativeSummaries/bills_ls.asp?ls=c38&Parl=38&Ses=1

Also...best not to use words such as "wife", "husband", "mother" or "father" etc, as those words are of course discriminatory.

Children should be trained or heavily disciplined not to say words such as "mummy" or "daddy", even if it feels natural for a child to do so.

However, feel free to use words such as "gay", "straight", "queer", etc, as those words are commonly used by homosexuals to refer to other people, and you can make frequent use of the word "boy", such as in "boy butter".

Also...always regard homosexuals in a positive way, with no criticism whatsoever, and always regard homosexuals as being oppressed and victimised.

For example, you might see a group of homosexuals pretending they are Roman soldiers.

http://www.samesame.com.au/404/635_400/b6225_404039.jpg

Do not think of the murders, persecution and slavery carried out by Roman soldiers, but instead think of homosexuals as being victimized and abused in our current society.

So just some gentle reminders to be more careful with your language and your thoughts.

Well RObert...
A normal society by definition, is a society which is based on what the majority in that society consider as normal, (as opposed to deviant). Homosexuality is a deviant from the vast majority of society members, therefore not normal and does not thus fit the detination of normal!
(It is considered to be an abnormal union, when two people of the same sex wish to engage, through marriage medium, which is currently entirely inside the confines of the normal heterosexual union)!

And there is the problem. What is normal, in relation to the "Everyman" view of homosexuals, is the concessions already made towards homosexuals by a lenient society, which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity or gender bias.
Those many concessions are mere human rights which should ensure the safety and peace of all members of society, regardless.

Unfortunately, the path towards overturning convention in this way, is becoming littered with the debry of free speech, and the loss of freedoms once assumed to be afforded to children.

" Unfortunately, the path towards overturning convention in this way, is becoming littered with the debry of free speech, and the loss of freedoms" - agreed on that point but I'm also of the view that part of th4e reason for the loss of those freedoms is the routine use by some of freedom without care or responsibility.

There are those on both sides who use whatever means they can to shut down the freedoms of those they disagree with.

R0bert

diver dan

I am glad to see you do not use the word "gay" and use the word "homosexual" instead.

Use of the word "gay" has become normalised in some areas, although it is a slang term for homosexual, and in that context the word "gay" should should not be used and normalised.

One has to be careful regards choice of words, so as to not show insensitivity towards homosexuals.

When starting a family, there is a situation where two homosexuals decided to purchase a surrogate baby in america, rather than purchase the baby in Thailand.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/news/australian-surrogacy-laws-need-to-change-sydney-couple/news-story/4ed9845e516b7894d3e353860a822e97?nk=9e465bd8b6013a575c3434fbfa012188-1472861028

The two homosexuals decided that purchasing the surrogate baby in america was more "ethical".

And as Thailand tightens its surrogacy laws, purchasing a surrogate baby in america is becoming easier anyway, and is becoming the new norm.

So ethics are being considered by some homosexuals.