My concept of marriage is two adults entering into the contract. They could either be a woman and a woman, a man and a man, a man and a woman, or two transgendered people (whatever their gender may be). Whatever form of duality (is that the right word?) it may be, a same-sex marriage would be qualitatively different to an adult-child marriage or a polygamous marriage in that it would start off on the footing of equality.

It is true that only a minority of homosexuals want marriage for themselves. However, that may change as it did in the Netherlands, Spain and so on. And if only a minority desire same-sex marriage, then same-sex marriage won't matter one iota to traditional marriage. I've said before that same-sex marriage opponents contradict themselves. They assert that gays are a tiny minority then in the next breath scream that same-sex marriage would be earth shattering.

Homosexuality is a choice? I don't believe it is genetic. However, one's sexual orientation can't be altered at will. And besides, you could say being Jewish is a choice, being a Christian is a choice - so what? Should people have to hide their Christianity because others might be offended? Should they have to change their religion because their family mightn't approve? Religious types should think about that before they open their arrogant mouths.

As for the cliched "slippery slope" argument I'll ask a question. If we allow a man and a woman to marriage won't that inevitably lead to man wanting to marry young girls? You see, to say same-sex marriage will lead to adult-child or polygamous marriages gets history the wrong way round. Those sort of marriages either exit now in some countries or were part of tradition dating back centuries. Besides, one policy change doesn't necessarily lead to another - apart from in some people's lurid imaginations.

What goes on in homosexuals bedrooms? Not very much lately in mine. Every gay except me seems to having a promiscous lifestyle. But that's too much information I'm sure :-)

I would like to ask why heterosexual opponents of same-sex marriage need to be married themselves. You don't need marriage to have children, you don't need it to stay together, marriage can't prevent your spouse from leaving you, you can provide a stable environment for children by loving each other and remaining together. Why do you need a marriage contract?

If you choose to think about those points and answer the question, the reasons why gay people like myself want same-sex marriage recognition may actually dawn on you.

I see that Ron, presumably running out of any coherent argument, accuses me of hatred. So, when in trouble, resort to ad hominem attack?

Thank you DavidJS for willingness to debate with me. I will be upfront. I choose to argue from the principles that I have sought to base my life on for many years now, ie Christian principle derived from the Bible.

1. I have never thought of my marriage of 37 years as a contract but as a commitment we made together “so long as we remain alive”, before God in the presence of many witnesses most of whom are still alive. This gives enormous strength to our marriage – its not about what we individually get out of it but the melding of two people in a “one flesh” arrangement of mutual love, obligation and enterprise. Because of this, our relationship is quite resilient and able to take the rough and tumble of life.

2. I don’t agree with your point about marriage being open to two women/men. Back in Genesis 2:24 with Adam and Eve, we read “therefore a man shall leave his mother and father and be joined to his wife and they will become one flesh”. Whilst one flesh means more than children, at the very least it does mean that. If Adam and Eve had been Adam and Steve, then we wouldn’t be debating the topic. Male and female beautifully complement one another, physically, emotional, every which way. To the extent that they don’t, is because of the “me first” principle.

3. I’m glad you agree homosexuality is not genetic and I’m sure you are correct that it is very hard to break out of that lifestyle.

4. I agree that Christians, Jew, homosexuals, evolutionists/creationists, etc should be open about their convictions/ lifestyle choices – you say it is not easy for homosexuals and I believe you. I ask you to consider how easy it is for Christians – straight away we are verbalised as fundamentalists. Something like 300,000 Christians lose their lives each year through persecution some place or other.

5. More tomorrow why marriage might be better plus I’ll have a go at your last para.

I'm not in the slightest bit interested in what Genesis has to say. The Bible (nor the Iliad for that matter) has much use in terms of how I conduct my life.

In terms of your relationship - as you've described it you don't appear to need legislation to endorse it. As you believe in a god, isn't that authority enough? Why do you need the Marriage Act 1961? If your relationship is strong enough (if you and your wife are indeed "as one") then why do you need acts of parliament?

It would be hard for me to breakout of the homosexual "lifestyle" as you quaintly put it since I have no desire to change my sexual orientation. Would it be hard for you to breakout of the Christian lifestyle? There are ex-Christians who have managed to breakout of their former lifestyles. I personally know a few. It can be done.

A slightly different angle - a writer to the Sydney gay press suggested having a civil unions act to legally protect same-sex relationships could be the way to go. They already have one in Argentina. In Australia that would mean identical rights to marriage under the Marriage Act 1961 but it would be covered by different legislation. Would do you and others think?

DavidJS

Part 1

I didn’t really think you would be interested in Genesis or the Bible if only because it goes so strongly against the homosexual lifestyle, though the way you conduct your life has been shaped by the Bible if only because of the way it has influenced the development of Western civilisation, assuming of course you are of European ancestry.
I quoted the Bible simply so that you understand the basis on which I engage with you.

You say “you don't appear to need legislation to endorse it. As you believe in a god, isn't that authority enough? Why do you need the Marriage Act 1961? If your relationship is strong enough (if you and your wife are indeed "as one") then why do you need acts of parliament??”

I think you are right up to a point.

As far as I know every culture (there may be the odd exception?) in human history has had a recognisable form of marriage (between a male and a female), certainly marriages existed before States acknowledged or regulated them. The relationship of a man and woman in marriage is always a fragile thing, especially when children are involved. Such relationships need every bit of support and assistance that they an get. A formal marriage, regulated by Government is seen as one way of achieving this end.

Contra, living together, marriage is never only personal and private, though it is certainly that. Marriage as an institution, acknowledged and regulated in law is the public recognition and regulation of human sexuality between a man and a woman as a socially recognised means by which children can be brought into the world and cared for – and don’t demean and trivialise this aspect of marriage! And as marriage confers benefits to the rest of society so
societies have reciprocated for married couples.

End of Part 1