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.