“Another relevant principle might be a utilitarian approach to the betterment of humankind. More people will be happier if they are permitted to marry whomever they want.”

What is the difference in happiness between de facto couples and married couples? You can be with whoever you want. People who equate happiness with the legal marriage are people who have a very poor understanding of human happiness and relationships.

Comparing sexual orientation with race, disability, gender and other such human characteristics is dishonest unless sexual orientation can be shown to be as fundamental to human nature as those other characteristics. Stating it as a ‘given’ in the hope that people will accept it as readily as they accept race, disability and gender is very poor logic.

Sexual behaviour is not proof of sexual orientation. It is only proof of sexual behaviour. Until we have proof of such a human characteristic as sexual orientation then any such comparisons with race, disability and gender should be dismissed. We can observe race, gender and disability with our own eyes and we can observe sexual behaviour with our own eyes but where is the proof of sexual orientation?

One aspect of the current contentious debate hinges around the formal name given to the bonding of two people.
The term "marriage" is old, very traditional, and had its foundation in the legal recognition of heredity including goods and chattels.

Today, the term defines the legally or formally recognised union of two people as partners in a relationship.
Why not find another term for this union, thus cease irritating those who have traditional or religious interpretations of the word "marriage"?

“The outcome of such an analysis is that religious arguments on same-sex marriage are subjective, discriminatory and lack ethical merit.”

What arrogant claptrap. It is one thing to say that you THINK that someone else's beliefs “'lack ethical merit”, but to pronounce that they ARE, is totally unacceptable bigotry. But then, bigotry is what we have come to expect from the supporters of fake marriage – most of whom don't care about homosexuals themselves, but only their own, political bandwagon. In this case 'Ethical Rights' and the death cult 'Exit International'.

David Swanton is a 'word forger', twisting the meanings of words to suit his insidious manipulations of people's minds. 'Equality' – a word beloved of that other Marxists manipulator, Bill Shorten – has nothing to do with fake marriage. Fake marriages between people of the same sex are not equal to normal heterosexual marriage. The is no 'right' to fake marriage. Sure, the pushers and urgers are trying to bring about an artificial right, but there is no natural right, and it is dishonest to say there is when even he artificial concoction has not yet been delivered.

And of course, the Swantons of this world would say that religious believers are not 'objective'. That's just another empty put down from an anti-religionist. He even sneers at others' beliefs, while apparently having none of his own or, if he does have any, they are far superior to those of Christians.

David Swanton has no particular qualifications to be lecturing anybody on what they should think. He simply takes a 'I'm right and your are wrong' approach. Anyone can do that.

But, to someone I can respect: Graham Richardson, Lefty and ex-Labor politician as well as YES voter, has apologised for the thuggish behaviour of the YES campaigners and their loud, violent demonstrations against NO voters.

Don't be fooled by Swanton's “There are no fundamental dangers in same-sex marriage that require its repudiation.” It is the side effects that will haunt us forever.

The following sums the author's ideas: "it violates the sound ethical principle of equality for all humans."

There is no such ethical principle. It's a total lie, hence there is no need to read any further.

HEROC V the Australian Costitution
s. 116.
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth

" or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion"

This is where homosexuals fit!

Yuyutsu,

“There is no such ethical principle. It's a total lie...”.

Spot on. Coincidently, I have just begun reading a book by philosopher, Ryszgard Legutko suggesting the very same thing. There is reference to the maybe-sham of human 'rights', too, most of which are a construct of political activists and man-made legislation.

Demand a 'right', and viola, you have it.

Diver Dan,

Some people say that marriage is a religious thing – nothing to do with governments in the first place. I don't know where that would put the legal protections of marriage, though.

Dear Dan,

Why conflate homosexuals with any of this anti-religious crap? I don't think that the author is even homosexual!

---

Dear Ttbn,

«Some people say that marriage is a religious thing»

Marriage CAN be a religious thing, but in any case it is subjective.
No government can judge on the subjective matters of the heart, so speaking of "legal protections", how can anyone protect that which they cannot even recognise?!

This author's "accusation" of religion as subjective is actually a compliment!

For those fools who revel in objectivity, may I remind the words of Matthew [24:35]: "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away".

Reject this argument on the basis of a false premise.

Just as personal belief allows conscientious objectors to refuse to carry a gun or kill in kill or be killed conflict. Then conscience needs to be included in all matters of GENUINE religious conviction!

If a baker has an unholy fear of left handed folk, then he or she retains the right inherent in any democracy, to refuse service! Even where the rejected customer feels there is, [a born this way,] prejudice!

What the baker can't do, is don a white bedsheet with eyeholes, carry a flaming cross and go burn a neighbor's house down! On any grounds!

Nor is it acceptable for any form of violence to persuade the undecided of the merits of any political campaign. This is not the wild west or the hopelessly divided Middle East!

In any event, regardless of the merit of the case or who intends to cross the floor or die in a ditch first?

This issue, [is the law to be changed so as to allow two people, regardless of gender bias, to join in civil marriage, be allowed,] will be decided by the next election.

Even so, one need look no further than across the ditch, where SSM was done deal around four years ago, to understand some of the confected and spurious BS claims pertaining to SSM, freedom of speech safe schools and religion!

For whom do the bells toll? Pavlov's, [salivating on demand,] dogs of course! And just too easy!
Alan B.

Christ, what a bunch of millenial snowflakes. Or maybe I've just evolved into a grumpy old bastard. Yeah, that could be it.

When my parents got married in 1940 - being communists, it would have been a civil ceremony - women had very few protections. Birth control was unreliable, Menzies hadn't introduced child endowment (kids, ask your grandparents) and deserted wives had to wait two years before they could get any financial support, as my mum found out a few years later.

So for women, marriage was a very big deal, involving their leaping into the unknown, effectively with a stranger. So the State had to provide limited safeguards for women, even for communists. And of course, the big one was the commitment by men to their marriage vows, not to shoot through and to provide financial support for women who otherwise would be totally destitute. But I suppose today's snowflakes aren't sure what 'destitute' means.

Move forward just a few years, and women got the Pill (the sixties); a few years more and they could receive single mothers' benefits (the early seventies). Then no-fault divorce, and the recognition of the rights of de facto couples, and formerly illegitimate children.
Each development may have meant that marriage was less salient for both men and women.

Nowadays living together represents far more choice, and much less risk, for women. It was probably never about 'equality' but the safeguards for women against abandonment in dangerous times. Different times. So, as Phanto comprehensively points out, why marriage ?

Joe

<<The following sums the author's ideas: "it violates the sound ethical principle of equality for all humans." There is no such ethical principle.>>

I completely agree.

I have five medical conditions. They are all terrible to have and I am on 10 medications per day, which I need to take twice per day, or I will not be living very long.

For those who expect any type of equality across life, well then these people can swallow all of the medications I take (and many taste disgusting) and these people calling for equality can also pick up the costs of medication I take, (about $2000 per year) and this excludes government subsidies.

Equality is something, that some will want, in terms of a desire.... but that itself is not a healthy way to live.

We discriminate all the time. Men arent allowed to play in women's sports teams. Swimming pools close their doors to everyone but Muslim women. Companies advertise for indigenous only applicants. Non indigenous people aren't allowed to access indigenous only services. Actively gay people aren't allowed to donate blood. The list is endless.
On the other hand, if we demand total equality for all consenting adults then we must accept marriage for polygamists, close relations, groups of people and any other form of adult relationship that exists.
Things could get messy.
.

Yes, Big Nana, we do indeed discriminate all the time. But we do this when there is a good reason to do so. What reason do we have to discriminate against gay couples when it comes to marriage?

<<On the other hand, if we demand total equality for all consenting adults then we must accept marriage for polygamists, close relations, groups of people and any other form of adult relationship that exists.>>

Why must we necessarily accept those other forms of marriage? Equality isn’t something that should be dished out willy-nilly. If, however, you don’t think there is anything wrong with those other forms of marriage, then I would ask why you think we should not allow marriage in those instances?

It is very easy to see this ethicist gets his morals from slime. No wonder his worldview has led to so many suicides and the breakdown of civil society. His pathetic finger waving at His Maker is atrocious.

Yuyutsu …

I can't help (as much as I try to resist), putting you into the same basket of fools that post on OLO, all too frequently. (Myself excluded of course).

If you believe homosexuals are not at the root ( no pun intended) cause of gay marriage, then you bewilder me!

So, Q: do you believe this author is not pro-gay marriage, (And thus not a Marxist)?

This country (once Australia), is under constant and severe attack from the ideology of Marxism.

The alienation of Australians, (whoever one of those is now), is well advanced. Using the tool of reification, where the subjective is torn from the objective, alienating a myopic society, and leaving it fighting against itself in the death-throws of a traditional past, Marxism is stampeding through our midst on an apocalyptic mission of social destruction.

The training ground for the Marxist drones, are universities. These should be urgently defunded.
(Further, Latin should be the preserve of the Catholic Church alone, who will protect those poor and disaffected fools, with lives afflicted by such useless learning; forced to sing Latin dirges as penance, by Papal decree, for the remainder of their sad lives).

But hope springs eternal. Donald Trump has risen from the ashes of a divided America, to gather his troops for a final battle against Marxist ideologues; total destruction of NK seems imminent, China next!?

AJ Phillips,

"It may not be widely known, but arranged and forced marriages are part of life in Australia."

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/insight/tvepisode/arranged-marriage . There is a video attachment of the program with that.

"The Federal Government is considering laws to prevent forced marriages, after a number of cases of young Australian women being pressured to wed or forced to marry abroad.

But, of course, marriages arranged by parents and family aren't always forced. Some cultural groups in Australia – among them Indian and Lebanese – are choosing to keep the tradition alive, and their children are happily allowing their spouses to be chosen for them. Some people, however, are agreeing to the marriages because of family pressure."

So realistically other elements of society, cannot be fairly compared. For example with blood donation, a person may sue the Red Cross for example, if they were to obtain a blood related disease. If a person was injured in sport (in terms of woman playing versus a man), taking legal action as a result.

With relationships though, these are very personal matters. I cannot really state, which relationships are acceptable and which are not, based on my own personal values or attitudes and force these principles onto others. After all some people are still opposed to same sex relationships. Finally, I could start forcing a range of personal principles and values onto others, and I can't see people accepting that. After all, I generally don't want people placing principles onto myself either.

So AJ, marriage equality isn't for all, just for some? Whatever happened to the mantra that it's all about love? That everyone should be able to marry the one they love? That everyone should have equal rights and not be treated as a second class citizen?
Personally, if gay people get to change the definition of marriage then certainly I will support all consenting adults having the right to marry who they want because the institution of marriage would have lost its original concept and will be meaningless. Civil contracts are just as legally binding.

NathanJ,

I’m not entirely sure what the relevance was of the first few paragraphs there, but I’m happy to respond to this…

<<With relationships though, these are very personal matters. I cannot really state, which relationships are acceptable and which are not, based on my own personal values or attitudes and force these principles onto others. After all some people are still opposed to same sex relationships.>>

This is why an objective view should be taken. A way of doing that would be to weigh the risks and benefits of allowing for same-sex marriage.

--

Big Nana,

As I have noted on numerous occasions, it depends on what the risks and benefits are of each form of marriage.

<<… marriage equality isn't for all, just for some?>>

If, as you suggested in a previous discussion of ours, you believe that there is no inherent harm to polygamous and some forms of incestuous relationships, then I am willing to take your word on that. However, I would ask why you would not allow them to marry, if this is the case.

<<Whatever happened to the mantra that it's all about love? That everyone should be able to marry the one they love?>>

I have never said that.

<<That everyone should have equal rights and not be treated as a second class citizen?>>

Now that I HAVE said. Again, within reason, though. I mean, we couldn’t exactly release all incarcerated persons in the name of equality now, could we? That would have demonstrably disastrous results.

<<Civil contracts are just as legally binding.>>

But they’re still not the same. For starters, they differ from state to state. It's a bit of a dry and offensive alternative to be tossing to gay people, too, I would think.

Dear Dan,

Yes, the author is a dangerous Marxist, but as far as I know he is not homosexual.

I see no problem with homosexuality as such (more precisely, it is not more of a problem than other forms of sexuality) - only with its cynical exploitation for the Marxist/anti-religious agenda.

«If you believe homosexuals are not at the root ( no pun intended) cause of gay marriage, then you bewilder me!»

But this is true: just as most Marxists are not homosexual, so most homosexuals are neither gay nor Marxists.

Of course a piece of paper does not make for
a bulletproof love life. People get married for
a host of different reasons. However, this choice
should be available to all consenting non-familial
adults in our society however under the current
legislation it isn't.

"I got married and hoped for the best and perhaps I am
biased because I view stable monogamous relationships
as a less multifaceted sundae, but as a pleasantly
surprising cherry on top of the sundae that is my life."

To each his/her own.

Yuyutsu…

Christians rolling over to gay marriage, are of the modernist faith; immanentists. No Westminster Confession of faith in their life.

Immanentism fits the Marxist logic of fluidity. Easy it is to divide the Christian church on this most basic of Christian teachings: The Sanctity of marriage.

But the fundamentalists will not be rolled!

I'm pretty impressed with the Conservatives of the Liberal Party. Since this Marxist agenda of social destruction of the West began to escalate, it became clear, a small group of powerful bourgeoisie in the upper echelons of power and influence, are the driving force behind it. Kudos to the Libs for the recognition of the fact.
And what brilliance, a referendum to flush them out.

One point I do agree with Yuyutsu, all homosexuals are not interested in the Marxist manipulation of their sexual fetishes between themselves. It has been a very negative ride for many of them.

Yuyutsu...

And while I'm on the front foot, the most urgent counter attack against the Marxists confrontation with society, is education.
It is critical education of vulnerable children be reclaimed.

The way forward with this counter-attack is threefold.
One is the elimination of the teachers unions. Two is the sale of the public school system to private enterprise, a move that will automatically eliminate the former. And three, defund universities.

I'm not sure why the No side of the argument hasn't raised this, but it is not illegal for homosexuals to get married in Australia. The government just doesn't register those relationships. They are just de facto, rather than de jure. So the argument cannot be about the right to be married. Which makes it about not very much at all. Probably on both sides of the argument, which maybe is why No hasn't used it. I think if marriage really meant something, we'd be having an entirely different argument.

AJ, Australia is actually one of the few countries that already has one form of legal incestuous marriage and that is avunculate marriage, where you can marry your aunt or uncle. That is the same degree of DNA match as a half sibling yet I've not heard anyone suggesting we remove that right. So I can't see why full siblings can't marry, if they are cults and the relationship did not start in childhood.
As I said, if we are going to destroy the original concept marriage then it may as well be available to all adults. That is what is actually meant by marriage equality.
Polygamy, adult incest and polyamory already exist as defacto relationships, just as homosexual ones do, so I cannot see why, if you open the door to one, it's not open to all.

Graham, I believe it is all about money.

A huge percentage of homosexuals are employed by the government.
Government employees have most generous pension benefits.
These pensions are extremely generous to the spouse of the employee.

I believe this whole push is to get these benefits for the sexual partner of homosexuals employed by government.

It is somewhat telling that much of the thrust for homosexual marriage is coming from universities, the ABC, & the bureaucracy in general.

Author, David Swanton writes:
“Respecting equality requires that if heterosexuals can marry whomever they want, then everyone should have that right.”

Nope.
Heterosexuals are also unable to marry someone of the same sex.
Equality preserved - crisis averted; cancel the survey.

AJ Philips writes:
“Equality isn’t something that should be dished out willy-nilly.”

Priceless.

Dear Dan,

«Christians rolling over to gay marriage, are of the modernist faith; immanentists. No Westminster Confession of faith in their life.»

Thank you for the information - it's always good to learn new things!

However, while some theologies can accommodate homosexual marriages and while I view it positively, no Christian, indeed no religion, should conduct gay marriages (as opposed to homosexual marriages), because that's a contradiction in terms:

The marriage sacrament (as opposed to the the fact of marriage) is designed along a life-time chain of sacraments, from birth to burial, to uplift one's life above their animal-urges and remind people that whatever they do should be aimed toward God. In contrast, the concept of being "gay" is to be proud of one's sexuality, thus refuse to transcend it. The fact that one's sexuality happens to be directed towards the same gender is insignificant, but the fact that one is proud about it goes against the grain of what the marriage sacrament tries to achieve. I would similarly refuse to conduct marriage sacraments for heterosexual couples who are proud of their sexual urges and use their wedding to celebrate them.

---

Dear Graham,

«I'm not sure why the No side of the argument hasn't raised this, but it is not illegal for homosexuals to get married in Australia.»

I have raised it time and again on OLO.

«I think if marriage really meant something»

But marriage does mean a lot. What doesn't mean anything is the bad joke called "legal marriage".

---

Dear Hasbeen,

«Graham, I believe it is all about money»

Had this been the case, then homosexuals could have long ago received the same status as "legally married" couples (albeit under a different name). You know my views that no one should have such a stupid status to begin with, but they could have had it if that's what they wanted.

Graham,

Perhaps *even* the no side know it would fall flat.

There are manifest distinct differences between de facto and legal marriage, and there are further differences when the couple are same sex. Similarly civil unions are not remotely equal.

As it stands at the moment, an estranged "next of kin" that you have not seen in years can be at your deathbed, decide the disposition of your body, refuse organ or cadaver donation, arrange your funeral and access your estate in short order. If they are vindictive, they might exclude your intimate partner of many years. Now, one *could* formally divorce all relatives in an attempt to prevent this but an opinionated clerk might just keep out your partner anyway, because there is no marriage certificate. Rather than such circumlocutions a marriage certificate confers real rights that are not conferred by civil union or de facto status and are *immediate*, which is the only sort that are useful in extremis.
I'm not sure why the "no" camp think it so important to continue this situation, or even the legal possibility, however remote.

What I think more odd is the insistence on enforcing one johnny-come-lately part of the current marriage definition while failing to police the other very clear prerequisite of "exclusivity". The registry would need a whole new rapid-fire "cancelled" stamp if people were *genuinely* serious about "traditional" marriage rather than having one last go at gays "because they can".

Rusty.

The author should have just been honest to begin with instead of trying to invent a hypothetical religous mantra by combining different religions together.

If you can't be honest and quote the verses you mean directly then something is wrong. If you have to invent beliefs to make your points on religion, then you actively minipulate and then sow seeds of hate. Be honest or all you will reap is violence and opression of those you speak against (if successful) or more likely you will reap a negitive reaction to your schemes, possibly at your own doorstep if the group finding your lies feels justified in doing so.

By being honest the other side has an respectable chance to correct you, or see the error that is pointed out. By fabricating a lie or a "what if" senerio you rob those chances.

Be honest man. Even if it doesn't work towards your interests and goals, it's still the better option then anything else. If you can not be honest, then be silent. That is the best route.

//If you can't be honest and quote the verses you mean directly then something is wrong.//

Yeah, most people have a bible or know where find one:

http://www.biblegateway.com/

So they can look the verses up for themselves.

The ones referenced in the article were:

Genesis 6:7
And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Exodus 12:12
For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord.

Exodus 12:29-30
29 And it came to pass, that at midnight the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.
30 And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead.

Exodus 35:2
Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.

Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Deuteronomy 17:12
And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel.

1 Timothy 2:11-12
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

A few observations:

* Clearly not everything in the bible sets a good moral example - a bit of violent persecution unbelievers is par for the course for any respectable religion, but the ethnic cleansing of the Egyptians (and their cattle) is a bit over the top.
* WTF did God have against Egyptian cattle anyway? Were they enslaving the Jews too?
* It's always entertaining to see how staunchly some Christians support anything in the Bible that can be interpreted as being anti-homosexual, whilst also being so completely relaxed about people working on Saturdays. Shouldn't they at least be condemning them, even if actual stoning is unfashionable these days?

Graham,

What Rusty Catheter said. There is a big difference between de facto relationships and marriage. I don’t know why some insist on claiming otherwise.

http://www.smh.com.au/video/video-news/video-national-news/samesex-marriage-the-facts-20161003-4leoa.html
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/tony-abbotts-wrong-de-facto-couples-dont-have-the-same-rights-as-married-ones-20170921-gym5s9

--

Big Nana,

I think you just gave one reason yourself.

<<That is the same degree of DNA match as a half sibling yet I've not heard anyone suggesting we remove that right. So I can't see why full siblings can't marry …>>

Because full siblings share double the number of genes. Perhaps we could allow marriage between those incestuous couples for whom children are not a possibility?

<<… if we are going to destroy the original concept marriage then it may as well be available to all adults.>>

Marriage has a murky past, but once looked very different to what it is now. I personally would love to bring back traditional marriage, because I think my daughter is worth at least two oxen and a goat.

<<That is what is actually meant by marriage equality.>>

Not necessarily. If some can demonstrate that those other forms of marriage would prove to be more harmful than beneficial, then there is no rational reason to grant them equal status.

There is nothing wrong with dealing with one issue at a time. If you are right, and there is nothing wrong with polygamy and incest, then I’m sure they will one day be legislated for. We can focus on that next, if you'd like.

--

Dustin,

How is what I said “priceless”? Do you think it contradicts something I’ve said in the past?

"the white person must be silent."

That religion has already been invented.

"Anyone who condemns the discriminatory text" is condemning words alone.
Only actions harm people.
If believers *act* on those words, they would be charged with murder.

"Equality of all people" is a subjective value with no basis in reality.

"a person’s right to practise their religion of choice should be limited so that it does not impact on others"

And a person's right to express their sexual identity should be limited so that it does not impact on others, e.g bakers, priests, schoolchildren.

"that people want to be happy and that others might not necessarily find happiness in the same ways that they do."

So now it's about being happy?
I thought it was about luuuurve.

One may be happy in a racially, religiously and/or sexually segregated community, business or club.
But anti-discrimination law won't allow that.

"This is where hypocrisy becomes apparent."

Rusty:

There maybe things wrong with the de facto and civil union agreements but that is an argument for fixing them and not an argument for marriage.

Why should couples be forced to go through a marriage ceremony, however minimal, and to make promises before the state which they have no desire to make. Marriage is not just a legal arrangement but also personal one.

Why should anyone have to give up their personal integrity in order to get rights that are available only to married couples. It also makes a mockery of marriage. How do we know which couples have made genuine promises and which ones are just doing because they are forced to do it to obtain rights that should be based on the quality of relationship and not on the possession of a marriage certificate.

Tony Lavis. If the author was honest in his approach then it could be addressed honestly. Instead he admits that this fabrication is a change from both the bible and the quaran. Let's make it clear and simple. No religion is the same as a different religion with different texts and beliefs. Christianity is not Islam. Islam is not Buddism. Buddism is not Hinduism, and Hinduism is not Scientology. This brand of ideas to count religion as if it is one single embodiment of fools is a lie. Be specific with your critisms or stay silent. What good will it do otherwise? Don't fabricate a lie to make a point if you have real examples to go off of. If you don't have real examples don't lie then either.

What is your intreast in defending this man's lies? Do you hate Christianity so much your willing to support another man's lies because they support your views? Better he say it honestly, then if your concerns had merrit they would be shown as holding more merit then they do now.

I see nothing intrinsically wrong with incestuous relationships if they are entered into by responsible consenting adults;
preferably past childbearing age, in case of mishaps.

Society may rightly frown on the union of an 18-year-old daughter and her 36-year-old father but 40/50 years down the track?

Who should care?

Phanto, you make reasonable points.

We make a big thing of the promises, vows, and oaths, when really they are widow dressing.

In reality, all anyone is doing is notifying the community of their intent, not guaranteeing an outcome. I see no reason why that intent out not be recognised if the people involved so wish, including being "legally married" if they like. how about "mutually agreed next-of-kin" with details a matter of choice?

Is Mise,
And fair enough, for duly informed consenting adults. A simple commitment to use birth control is all the surety society might ask against conception. Since nothing is 100%, it would also be fair to undertake to support such couples choices in event of unintended pregnancy, be it continuation (many incestuous offspring exist, most are healthy) or early termination without inviting the opinions of the know-nothings with no skin in the game. The population risks are surely less than those of smoking, which we *do* permit as a free personal choice.

Rusty:

Not everyone that marries has intent. Many marry to abuse the legal aspects of being married. Some marry for comfort or fear of lonliness. Some marry to please relatives. There are many reasons which can make a mockery of the word marriage and any conditions based upon it.

"next-of-kin" need not be kin. It could be any adult that you appoint to care for your affairs or to take over your property.

Not up to us Phanto. Nor should it be. Couples confer this status on each other. "next-of-kin" is exactly what a marriage appoints: your chosen NOK, with priority over all previous, no guarantee of children, no enforceable fidelity, just the person you want with you.

So long as marriage has this particular privilege, people will want it, no matter how much we might think they ought not.

//Be specific with your critisms or stay silent.//

OK.

* Clearly not everything in the bible sets a good moral example.

Hmm, that is a bit vague - but Jesus, it's a big book. God ethnically cleansing Egyptians and their innocent cattle? Not OK. Jesus staying the hand of men who would stone a woman for adultery, inviting them to cast the first stone if they are without sin? Definitely OK.

* WTF did God have against Egyptian cattle anyway?

Christ, doesn't this one speak for itself? What sort of weird god takes it out on cows for heaven's sake? They don't have agency. Why the cattle? I'm not angry, I'm just bemused. What makes me irritable is that no Christian apologist will even attempt an answer.

* It's always entertaining to see how staunchly some Christians support anything in the Bible that can be interpreted as being anti-homosexual, whilst also being so completely relaxed about people working on Saturdays.

It's a point about hypocrisy: the bible is quite unequivocal that people who work on the Sabbath (whichever day you hold as sabbath) should be put to death, but it never happens. When you ask Christians why, they say it's because it's Old Testament. When you point out that the homophobic bits in the bible are Old Testament, they turn around quote Matthew 5:18. It gets tiresome.

//Don't fabricate a lie to make a point if you have real examples to go off of. If you don't have real examples don't lie then either.//

No, those were all real quotes, from the real King James Version of the bible. Has anybody ever told you that you're a rubbish Christian?

Dear Toni Lavis,

I am tempted to get a "This Guy Rocks"
t-shirt for you.

'cause you certainly do!

Rusty:

No its not up to us but it should be up to the government if they are the ones who have decided that the particular privilege be given to married couples. They should make sure that the couples really are married or else find some other criteria for deciding who should have the privilege.

Luv the pathetic fist waving against the living God. You would think the mockers would be smart enough to see who always wins in the end. And its not their pathetic dummy spits.

This assertion is made by David Swanton,the author:
” Respecting equality requires that if heterosexuals can marry whomever they want, then everyone should have that right. Most religious leaders (but not all religious people) reject this notion. Another relevant principle might be a utilitarian approach to the betterment of humankind. More people will be happier if they are permitted to marry whomever they want.”
This is complete nonsense.
A heterosexual may, with certain limitations, marry someone of the opposite sex. There is no such thing as “marriage” to a person of the same sex. Such a relationship is not a marriage, and being, until recently, a relationship involving criminal acts, has not been named.
There is no question about equality, a pervert can marry someone of the opposite sex, but there is no such thing as marriage to someone of the same sex.
The term “same sex marriage” is invalid, dishonest and misleading.
A pervert's same sex relationship should be referred to as such, unless there is an honest name for it.
The baseless lie of “marriage equality”, should be abandoned by those, like the author, who dishonestly assert it

//Dear Toni Lavis,

I am tempted to get a "This Guy Rocks"
t-shirt for you.//

Foxy, I wish I knew the art of screen-printing so I could make you a 'Librarians Do It With Books' t-shir.... no, wait, that sounds a bit wrong.

How about 'Librarians Do It in Silence'? Or maybe 'Librarians Do It in Stacks'?

Toni Lavis. Should it matter to me what you think of me? You who show yourself has hating Christianity, does not think I'm a good Christian. That does not bother me a bit. You who try to get a rise out of me from insults and red herring crap (which also derails the topic of the conversation). I see no reason to be concerned by your opinion. Nor do I see a benifit of acknowledging your points unless they actually deal with the the origional topic of the thread. (Again since you're prone to derail topics).

You say the author used those verses you quoted. Look again. If He had then I would not have used the critism I had. No he changed them to suit his point. That is the issue
I had which I gave my critism from. He also used a changed bit from the quran. Which as I pointed out also is not good.

Your points on the bible could have been included in the article if they were just done with an honest approach. As of now since most of them in their context don't show a discrimination against homosexuals, your arguments of the bible being imoral are of no value to the conversation of homosexuals and marriage. Why should I try to defend what in essence if your action to yet again derail the topic.

Keep these things in mind, and know that your opinion is worthless to me. Change and do better and my opinion of you might change. Otherwise aside from being a troll to Christianity, you're gaining a collection of other attributes I've noted. I highly doubt you want to hear those though, nor do those insults have anything to do with this topic.

The critism I said earlier still stands and holds merrit for this article.

Big Nana - you wrote - Australia is actually one of the few countries that already has one form of legal incestuous marriage and that is avunculate marriage, where you can marry your aunt or uncle. That is the same degree of DNA match as a half sibling yet I've not heard anyone suggesting we remove that right. So I can't see why full siblings can't marry, if they are cults and the relationship did not start in childhood.
As I said, if we are going to destroy the original concept marriage then it may as well be available to all adults. That is what is actually meant by marriage equality.
Polygamy, adult incest and polyamory already exist as defacto relationships, just as homosexual ones do, so I cannot see why, if you open the door to one, it's not open to all.

Thank you for your informed post - will look into this further.