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?