Rodney Croome has argued for the same rights as heterosexuals. And why not? A ban on gay marriage is active discrimination.

No doubt, there will be those who argue that same sex marriage threatens the 'institution' of marriage - I fail to see how, thus far I have not been threatened by anyone marrying regardless of who they are or their beliefs.

Unfortunately the usual suspects will voraciously seek to have their personal beliefs imposed on everyone else; they will quote god, they will claim it destabilses society, they will say it is unnatural. What they cannot say is how it hurts them personally, because, ultimately it doesn't hurt them nor interfere with their lives.

I expect to be told that my post here is garbage or 'on a trendy band wagon' - simply because others disagree and cannot overcome their own prejudices to debate rationally.

Gays aren't going to go away just because someone doesn't like them - time to live and let live, people. Try it, it really doesn't hurt at all.

Its none of my business what anybody does in the privacy of their own home between consenting adults. Nor is it anybody elses business. For any government institution, state or federal, to impose themselves on an aspect of my personal emotional relationships and or sex life is just something that I for one will never tolerate as long as my (heterosexual) ass points to the ground. Gays of both sexes are at least 10% of the population....everywhere on the planet. Always have been, always will be. Those who're 'not disinterested' account for at least another 10%. You cant legislate sexual proclivities. Its as stupid as trying to outlaw left-handedness. On the plus side, this has brought the subject to the surface for consideration. On the minus side, much of the consideration, such as it is, is in the form of shock jock ranting to the braindead white skinned white bread eaters in the white fenced suburbs.....who gave us back johnny howard because he was going to stop those nasty yellow people coming here to blow up our homes and offices with their wmd's. These dribblers too often believe what they see and hear....but dont do any digging to check what is fed them. I sometimes rather cheekily refer to them as 'pap people'. They're close to being in the majority now....does this make them right? No. But it does make it more of an uphill struggle to get them to realise what it is that they're allowing themselves to be party to. Labour didnt just lose the last election....they were flogged mercilessly for selling pie in the sky (thanks whatshisname). Liberals didnt just win....they got away with murder because they sold the same message as the big guys...the yanks; an insecure public looked to the 'strength' for reassurance. The power of spin. The yanks are very good at it, and we tend to suck. I hate to play the same games as them, but this disparity in selling the message needs to change, quick. Racist yank nonsense is overriding EEO statutes with companies such as ADI. Not a good sign.

I don't see how the Marriage Act and the potential Tasmanian law could possibly not operate in the same field. Even though they apply to different groups they still have the same purpose. The argument that the legislation is not intended to be exclusive also seems weak and I doubt the present court (or any other) would accept it.

It may be clear that the Cth only deals with hetero marriage, but that does not mean that it is not meant to be exclusive and any ambiguity would mean looking at the second reading speech. I think that the historical context of the act prior to the amendment, s46(1) and the fairly exhaustive nature of the provisions is enough to remove any doubt. But there is the issue of the bigamy section being explicitly exclusive.

In any event, the Liberal party wouldn't think twice about passing legislation to stop new marriage laws and Labor is too demoralised and politically incompetent to be able to make a principled stand. Any serious debate increases the potential for further growth of fundamentalism and the development of a more powerful religious right in Australia. I do however think that it is necessary for a debate to occur, but it will go nowhere without a realistic expectation of success. The Greens do not have the required support, so either the impetus must come from within the Labor party or from a well ordered, tasteful and unaffiliated movement that is able to engage in significant public activity against the ban.

omygodnoitsitsitsyou, 10% is definitely overstating the size of the gay population and most probably the seriously bisexual as well. Could you please use paragraphs?

I think the issue here is not one of rights, but definiton. The union between two people has been defined as a marraige.....what we need is for the whole concept of religion and marraige to be abolished and a better definition (legal) of when a union exists between two people, regardless. This needs to cover all the areas that a traditional hetro/religious covers (and improved I guess). Gays just asking for religious recognition of their union is really up to the individual churches, but hey looks like a class 1 type of discrimination display which should be easy enough to demonstrate once religion/marraige is removed from the leagl framework altogether. Keeping the argument base on semantics i.e. Gay Marraige) is just helping the right wing christian groups enforce their conservative ways.

Good point Real Rob, perhaps the solution is to distinguish between a religious 'marriage' and a union between two people that provides the same rights and priviliges regardless of what sex the two people are.

Then the churches can maintain their right to deny a church 'marriage' to gays, if that makes them feel 'better'.

The proportion of gays in societies does seem to vary. However, it is fairly unarguable that it is not a modern phenomeneon. it was encouraged in Greek society - which surely did not deteriorate because of this.

I guess there were three intentions involved in the amendments to the Marriage Act last year.

First, in the light of judicial and legislative developments in other countries, to neutralise the same-sex marriage debate in Australia. The hopelessly divided Labor Party had no choice but to stifle any debate on the issue.

Second, with Christian-right parties apparently on the rise, to prop up John Howard’s image as a social conservative.

Third, actually to stop same-sex couples from marrying. This is certainly what our elected representatives thought they were doing when they passed the bill, which Rodney Croome acknowledges when he says that they “inadvertently” opened another door to same-sex marriage.

With the Tasmanian Greens’ move, and the legal opinions it is based on, the amendments sound like a Pyrrhic victory, except for the fact that most discriminatory practices against same-sex couples these says take place under Commonwealth law, rather than state laws. A married Tasmanian gay couple still won’t be treated equally by the Commonwealth in social security, tax and immigration issues, because the Commonwealth has specifically prohibited itself from recognising their marriage. Defence personnel and Commonwealth employees in same-sex relationships will still be disadvantaged compared to their opposite-sex colleagues, married or otherwise, because the Commonwealth retains for itself the right to discriminate against them.

I thoroughly endorse the Tasmanian Greens’ move to enable state-based same-sex marriages. It has the potential to offer same-sex couples real equality, at least in those areas covered by state laws, and because it exposes the hypocrisies behind last year’s amendments to the Marriage Act. I hope it will bring about more pressure to end the discrimination which the Commonwealth practises against same-sex couples daily.

Rodney Croome claims that marriage reform is needed for equal treatment under the law. The last time I checked homosexuals were allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex the same as everyone else. Therefore this has nothing to do with equal rights it is all about special rights. However lies such as these will continue to be spread by the promoters of sexual perversion who remain under the delusion that a homosexual relationship can be equal to that of a normal relationship.

The reason marriage is a public institution is because it recognises the natural union of a man and a woman, enabling children to be raised in a safe and healthy environment for reproduction of the human race. The Government has a duty to provide for the health and general well being of it's citizens. The negative health effects of the homosexual lifestyle have been well documented and it would be irresponsible for a Government to officially endorse such behaviour and disrupt the social norm just to allow a small minority to feel better about themselves.

Also, sexual activity between two people of the same sex is against the natural purpose for which we were created and is clearly condemned by God in the Bible (Lev. 18:22, 20:13, Rom. 1:24-32, 1Co. 6:9). Jesus tells us in Mat. 19:4-5 exactly what constitutes a marriage.

Well done Argon, U lived up to each one of my predictions in my post above:
ie, its not natural, god doesn't like it, disrupts the norm etc, etc, aaah the narrow world of the self righteous.

Anyway I'm impressed because the 6 posts preceding argon's are all in support of Rodney's article.

Maybe there's hope for a more tolerant world yet.

This is pure wishful thinking by Rodney Croome.

The Constitution makes it crystal clear that marriage law lies exclusively under the jurisdiction of the federal govt.

Saying that the ammendment of the Marriage Act now makes the law only apply to heterosexual marriage just highlights how so many activists have abandoned all rationality in favour of incoherent jibberish.

Gay activists want marriage (although funnily enough, most gays themselves couldn't care less about marriage - they don't want to be bound by such restrictive - as they see it - institutions), but the Marriage Act explicitly excludes them by definition. Therefore, distinguishing between same-sex marriage and heterosexual marriage is begging the question ie. assuming the truth of precisely the thing you are trying to prove.

The Constituion also excludes the states from making any such law. This was the case when states were collecting fuel excises. That was unconstitutional and the fed govt had to do it on their behalf.

And contra George Williams, the well known lefty law professor, Hell will freeze over before the High Court (apart from a bench with 4 Michael Kirbys) would allow such a law.

In any case, gay activist need to face political reality. The conservative vote in Australia in huge (and I'm not just referring to church goers) whereas the gay vote - despite the noise gay activists make - is miniscule. Governments all over the country are beginning to realise this and realise - as Nicola Roxon and the ALP did last year - that a government who legalises or attempts to legalise gay marriage is committing political suicide.

real rob, Mollydukes: Due to the limits on Commonwealth power and the legislation that relies on the matrimonial causes power (ie. most of the family law act) there is no prospect of getting the government out of marriage. I doubt that most who support the ban would be open to any political compromise and I don't think there are any real definitional issues.

Why are people against the word being used inclusively? If people saw it solely as a religious institution (whose religion?) then the present system would be equally unacceptable. They do not want to associate homosexual relationships with their own, they want them to be considered differently and they believe that there is a considerable distinction. An inclusive position marks homosexual and heterosexual relationships as being equal, and clearly some are not comfortable with only their religion being discriminatory.

If marriage was merely "the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life." then divorce would not be possible and polygamy would be a nonsense word. Those against marriage rights today will not be seen in the same accepting light as those who had supported past immoral practices.

About a third of Argon's post is true, the rest is just tired old falsehoods and shody reasoning. Aslan's has a bit more meat:
"The Constitution makes it crystal clear that marriage law lies exclusively under the jurisdiction of the federal govt."
"The Constituion also excludes the states from making any such law."
These two statements are absolutely, without doubt, dead wrong -- that stuff was thrown out in the 1920s. Did you read the article Aslan? A state law inconsistent with federal law will be invalid, otherwise the states are free to legislate on the subject.

The marriage act certainly does not explicitly exclude marriage for homosexuals -- the definition section serves only to explain what the word means in the legislation. If it had said 'marriage shall be' instead of '"marriage" means' then it would have explicitly excluded marriage for homosexuals, but it would not have been by definition.

I can't believe we are even having this debate. There is no way that any intelligent person could swallow the arguments propagated by Croome and Williams.

First of all, the argument about the Federal government failing to properly limit marriage. It is manifestly clear, that in the climate that the Federal government was operating, the Marriage Act was further defined specifically to respond to homosexual couples seeking to have their Canadian 'marriage' recognised in the Family Court. In this way, the definition of marriage was intended by parliament to be a full statement on the status of both heterosexual and homosexual marriage.

If one was to refer to the High Court decision of Telstra v Worthing (1999) 197 CLR 61 at 76 [28] one would find this statement:

"Moreover, if it appears from the terms, the nature or the subject mattter of a Federal enactment that it was intended as a complete statment of the law governing a particular matter or set of rights and duties, then for a State law to regulate or apply to the same matter or relation is regarded as a detraction from the full operation of the Commonwealth law and so is inconsistent".

It simply cannot be any clearer. This is merely a publicity stunt by gay activists to relaunch the debate into society in the vain hope that, if society is bombarded enough, people will magically become sympathetic. Highly unlikely.

And I can't believe Em's ignorance of what this is all about. It is do with equality and human rights. That is the perspective of many of us in the gay and lesbian rights movement. And we will continue to lobby around this issue as we have done previously on the issue of decriminalisation of homosexual acts.

And bad news for the likes of Em and Aslan. Continual lobbying in order to achieve decriminalisation of homosexuality has been a success in Australia in every state and territory. Once it was considered perfectly reasonable for homosexuality to be a criminal offence. Now it isn't. We won. Get used to it, as they say.

We will also win on the issue of same-sex marriage. Probably not anytime soon as we have only just started working on this issue. But we will keep doing what we have to do so as to achieve our aims. And our success will be to do with the fact that gay rights are part of overall human rights in a democratic, capitalist framework.

The right to be a homophobe is old hat - akin with a backward mediaevalism that has died out in most democratic countries.

Deuc,

Yes, you are technically correct about the non-exclusivity of Marriage law. However, the enactment of the federal Marriage Act makes this a moot point. As you acknowledge, it invalidates any contrary state law. As Em pointed out, the High Court in Telstra v Worthing made it clear that "if it appears from the terms, the nature or the subject mattter of a Federal enactment that it was intended as a complete statment of the law governing a particular matter or set of rights and duties, then for a State law to regulate or apply to the same matter or relation is regarded as a detraction from the full operation of the Commonwealth law and so is inconsistent."

Deuc said: "If it had said 'marriage shall be' instead of '"marriage" means' then it would have explicitly excluded marriage for homosexuals"

This is just playing semantic games. "Marriage means..." was clearly intended to define what is and is not a marriage. The definition implicitly excludes same-sex relationships. It is not intended to limit the applicability of the Act.

DavidJS, man+man or woman+woman can never be equal to man+woman no matter how loudly you complain. Moreover, homosexuals have never been denied the right to marry. They simply cannot marry someone of the same-sex. This is no more a violation of human rights than disallowing a person to marry someone under age, or someone who is already married.

Bad news for you DavidJS, you lost the same-sex marriage debate - and by a long long way. And we haven't even started yet. We haven't even scratched the surface! No lobby group can compete with a unified and focused Church.

Actually, the rise of gay and anti-family lobbiests has been a good thing for the Church in Australia. They have woken the sleeping giant.

DavidJS, "homophobe" describes an irrational fear of same-ness, but is usually used to refer to people who object (for good social and moral reasons) to homosexuality.

Let me assure you, DavidJS, I do NOT fear you or any other homosexual.

It is an issue of semantics Aslan, but not as a game. The definition section only describes what the word means within the context of the act -- it does not have its own legislative force. Parliament doesn't have the power to define what marriage means, although it can impose limitations on it.

Is there really any point in you making arguments that don't even rise to the level of speciousness? Anyone can see that those demanding gays be given the right to marry are shortening themselves for convenience. The right to marry is effectively no right at all without the choice to marry who you want, clearly the issue is securing for homosexuals the right to marry the person of their choice. (With the other persons consent etc.)

But since you brought it up, why not examine such situations. Assuming that the right to marry is a human right, do you consider that making it illegal for people of different races to get married be a violation of that right? What about restricting the choice of marriage to only those people accepted by one's parents? People with similar genetic predispositions? Only people born in the same month? There is no difference between a heterosexual relationship and a homosexual relationship that would distract from the nature of marriage.

The "Church" does not have a unanimous voice on this matter, there are many Xians who would consider that the spirit of Jesus' teachings requires nothing less than marriage rights for gays and many more that believe that they're views should not dictate the law. Pro-marriage for gays is pro-family; there will certainly be a reaction but that's what happens when people feel their identities are being attacked.

Say what you want about the word homophobe Aslan, but you're the one playing semantic games.

Aslan inadvertently reveals his/her contempt for marriage by asserting that homosexuals are actually allowed to marry now - but someone of the opposite sex. I am familiar with the havoc this sort of marriage wreaks on the lives of people involved. I think it used to be more common in the 1950s and 1960s when homosexuality was illegal here (or rather "homosexual acts" - effectively the same thing). But the point is religious fundamentalists would prefer a gay man to marry a straight woman - regardless of how destructive it would be for all concerned. Better to have ideological purity than happy relationships. But then, marriage for religious fundamentalists has always been abstract. They tend to talk about "marriage" rather than actual marriages.

As for the point that the marriage debate has been "lost", well, what is this then? "Lost" implies it is over. It is not over, it is a long process that is happening RIGHT NOW in case you hadn't noticed. If Aslan is referring to the aborted Senate Inquiry, I'd hardly call that a debate. And both the ALP and the Coalition oppose same-sex marriage. There was no debate.

No, events won't move overnight. But neither did they in Canada, the Netherlands or Belgium. But I'm patient and, as we've seen with decriminalisation and age of consent equalisation, patience and work is rewarded.

Aslan, your capacity for sweeping generalisations never ceases to amaze me:-

"although funnily enough, most gays themselves couldn't care less about marriage - they don't want to be bound by such restrictive - as they see it - institutions".

Where do you get such ridiculous information? On what survey, with what size sample of the gay population, do you base your claim? (It can't be based on the views of any actual gay persons you know, because I'm certain you can't ever possibly have met a real live homosexual). Not to mention the fact that there are many heterosexuals who don’t want to be “bound” by the “restrictive” institution of marriage - doesn't lessen their right to it.

[Deleted for flaming] You have NO NEED to be afraid of us. As novelist John Irving put it in a recent interview, when lamenting the cultural divisiveness encouraged by the Bush administration:-

“Why do so many people care about gay marriages? How do gay marriages affect those of us who have heterosexual unions? How are we threatened? Mind-boggling. I thought the real endangerments to heterosexual marriages were other women or other men, or maybe spousal abuse. Wife beating – how about that one? When the president talks about the sanctimony of marriage, why doesn’t he address that? He’s a f*!#*!g moron. You can quote me on that.”

Jane,

Information came from numerous sources one of which is a document written by gay activist Matthew Loader: "A RECIPE FOR RECOGNITION OF SAME SEX RELATIONSHIPS":
"The differing views about relationship recognition are unsurprising – certainly our experience in South Australia when undertaking consultation with the lesbian and gay communities mirrored the results of consultation by political lobbies in other states: ‘Lesbians and gay men come from all walks of life and are so varied that they will never all agree on anything’. So, in queer communities as elsewhere, even though we are bound by common experience of alienation, it goes without saying that the answer for one will not be the answer for another."

Loader continues: "Presenting an equality claim that is based on a premise of normalisation and ‘sameness’ is, therefore, both intellectually unsound and at odds with the political task of the lobbyist to represent: it would be to homogenise our communities’ political views. If our political claim is simply to prove we are the ‘same as’ heterosexuals, we betray the diverse identities and voices we claim to represent. By deferring to a claim for ‘equality’ as ‘sameness’ – which is so politically palatable and easy to advocate – we ignore the more complex task of deconstructing binary social concepts of normativity and ‘otherness’ and border dangerously on essentialising our relationships – by making them ‘fit in’ with current heterosexual relationship constructs. Thus, rather than progress towards acceptance of diverse identities, sexualities and relationships, such an equality claim portrays a bland sameness and will end up fulfilling the wishes of few lesbian and gay partners."

There you have it Jane. From the words of gay activists themselves.

Also see gay sympathiser S. Sarantakos "Same-sex Marriage: Which wat to go?" Alternative Law Journal 24/2 April 1999.

Of course I have "NO NEED to be afraid" of you. That's precisely why I said I am absolutely not afraid of you. Duh!

Aslan's quote from Matthew Loader does indicate that gay activists do have differing views about same-sex marriage. That seems reasonable. After all, heterosexuals have differing views about marriage per se. I have plenty of straight friends who wouldn't dream about marrying themselves. However, they do support a campaign to allow gays to enter into marriage if they so want.

Let's make this clear: same-sex marriage differs from adult-child marriage or polygamous marriage because it is based on equality. Other forms are unequal. In democratic societies based on human rights an adult-child marriage would be seen (rightly) as a violation of human rights.

Btw, if people want to quote Leviticus or any other part of the Bible at me you go right ahead. Because quite frankly, I couldn't care less. However, I am interested in the fact that Jesus got angry to the point of physical violence with the money-changers in the temple. He specifically had the Hillsong people in mind when he did that.

But while you are at it, don't forget that Leviticus reserves the death penalty for (amongst other things) adultery. So how many of you selective Bible quoters out there are campaigning to have Tony Abbott and other adulterers stoned to death? And if you had any principles you'd be publicly campaigning for the death penalty for homosexuality, prostitution and any other "sin" deemed worthy of death instead of mealymouthed whingeing about same-sex marriage. Bring it on!

Hi guys,

Reckon the tide's just about gone out on same sex "marriage", not before time either.

Let's get real.

Marriage is enough of a struggle for the heterosexual population without loading it up with even more disfunctional behaviour.

Dysfunctional behaviour? Do you mean an obsession with the relationships of gay men and lesbians? Or blaming gays for the problems heterosexuals are facing with their marriages? If you have a problem with your marriage, well, that's your issue not mine.

The debate around same-sex marriage in this country has barely started. If you think the issue has gone away you'll be sorely disappointed. As I said before, countries such as the Netherlands have introduced same-sex marriage after years of campaigning by the gay rights movement there. I don't expect overnight changes in Australia. But as we've seen with the age of consent legislation in NSW, concerted campaigning has achieved the desired results.

As an aside, isn't it interesting that religious fundamentalists want the debate around same-sex marriage to end but the debate around abortion to continue?

DavidJS,

I do not have contempt for marriage. Quite the opposite - I honour marriage. In stating that homosexuals have every right to marry - but only someone of the opposite sex, I am not advocating that homosexuals should live double lives and marry just as a 'cover.' I am saying that their inability to marry is a consequence of their life choices.

BTW, Oregon's top ocurt has just annulled all gay marriages performed in that State. The 'marriages' violated the state constitution's definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Also, the Tasmanian Government has backed a Liberal Party motion calling on the House of Assembly not to support the principle of same-sex marriage. So much for Rodney Croome's plans for State regulated gay marriage...

Deuc,

Yes, the definition section describes what the word means within the context of the act, and the act legislates what is required for a marriage to be legally recognised under Australian law, and overrides all contrary state law (of which none exists anyway at present). Ergo, the definition of marriage DOES have legislative force by simple implication.

You said: "Parliament doesn't have the power to define what marriage means, although it can impose limitations on it." A particular word has meaning precisely because there are LIMITATIONS on its meaning. eg. "cat" refers to furry 4 legged animal with a tail, but a dog is not a cat. Cats also have whiskers etc etc. Therefore, in limiting the meaning of marriage to heterosexual unions, the Marriage Act has defined what marriage is and is not.

Re speciousness arguments: Remember that you are the one who is arguing the the heterosexual definition of marriage has opened the door to homosexual marriage...

"Re speciousness arguments: Remember that you are the one who is arguing the the heterosexual definition of marriage has opened the door to homosexual marriage..."
No I am not, I dismissed that argument in my first post to this thread and gave my reasons for doing so. Since then I have only been pointing out the flaws in your statements, I apologise for my part in any confusion.

The definition section certainly has an effect on the meaning of the legislation Aslan, but it does not have it's own force - which is what I said. The point was that the definition section does not define what marriage is, contrary to your claim that it explicitly excludes marriage for homosexuals by definition. My reference to parliament not being able to define what marriage means outside of the act is also there to refute that claim; because Parliament can only place limitations on marriage it is not "limiting the meaning of marriage".

As you said, the act states what is required for a marriage to be valid, but because of the definition it only speaks of heterosexual marriage. So there would be no direct inconsistency between those provisions and a state law legislating the requirements for homosexual marriage. BUT, the state law is inconsistent with the intention of the act to be exclusive, so it is invalid.

I see you haven't addressed my points and questions about the right to marry, or replied to jane with actual evidence that "most gays themselves couldn't care less about marriage". I won't cover whether homosexuality is merely a life choice, partly because of that and partly because I don't think it's relevant. No one has been able to present any sound or well supported arguments against allowing homosexuals to marry even if it is just a choice. Probably the only way to validly argue against it would require arguing against secularism.

Deuc,

You said: "No I am not, I dismissed that argument in my first post to this thread"

I checked your first post again and yes, you are correct. I apologise.

However, the ironic thing is that the reasons you gave are pretty much the same as the ones I gave! While the language I employed was admittedly a little bit loose and imprecise, we are essentially arguing the same thing!

You said:
--------
"I don't see how the Marriage Act and the potential Tasmanian law could possibly not operate in the same field. Even though they apply to different groups they still have the same purpose. The argument that the legislation is not intended to be exclusive also seems weak and I doubt the present court (or any other) would accept it.

It may be clear that the Cth only deals with hetero marriage, but that does not mean that it is not meant to be exclusive and any ambiguity would mean looking at the second reading speech. I think that the historical context of the act prior to the amendment, s46(1) and the fairly exhaustive nature of the provisions is enough to remove any doubt.
---------

I agree totally! I don't see where we differ on this.

Regarding evidence that most gays couldn't care less about marriage, I cited Matthew Loader's polling of the gay community and surveys referred to in Sarantakos's paper which is online:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AltLJ/1999/15.html

Re your questions on rights: I first need some clarification.
What is a human right?
Where do they come from? ie. How do we know what is and isn't a human right?

BTW, homosexual relationships are not even remotely comparable to heterosexual relationships. Will elaborate in another post - silly word limit!

"there are many Xians who would consider that the spirit of Jesus' teachings requires nothing less than marriage rights for gays"

Such 'Christians' are Christians in name only. They don't believe the Bible nor do they believe in the God revealed in the Bible. They believe in a God of their own creation.

If gays are successful in lobbying to have gay marriages recognised, what next? The right to divorce of course! What a load of $@#*.

All Christians (and Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs etc) believe in gods of their own creation. Since, like religion, marriage is a sociocultural construct that varies widely in the way it is currently practised in different cultures, I can see absolutely no reason why our society can't cope with a broader range of officially sanctioned marriage forms than are recognised under the Commonwealth legislation.

Personally, I share Groucho Marx's 'institutional' view of marriage. However, I have no problem with anybody over the age of consent and involved in committed relationships, institutionalising them as marriages if that is their mutual desire. It's their business, isn't it, rather than yours or mine?

If indeed it is possible for States to legislate for this to happen, then that would be a good thing. Let people seek happiness in relationships and lifestyles that suit them.

Those that want to interfere (and, indeed, 'pontificate' about it) should just get over it and mind their own business.

Come on guys, we all pontificate, not just the religious. I mean, what are we doing on this forum, if not pontificating. Garra is right up with the best of us, if not one of best.

I suggest Garra has a god of his own creation - himself! It still amazes how people can come in and formulate all manner of new orderings of society without any consideration of the past. Toss it all out and start again, and you can say whatever you like without any accountability whatsoever.

Garra says, "I can see absolutely no reason why our society can't cope with a broader range of officially sanctioned marriage forms than are recognised under the Commonwealth legislation" Really? How broad, what forms? Such bravery, such openmindedness, such foolishness!

Really? I thought that the idea was for these forums to offer us ordinary mortals a venue for commenting on the articles that are published at OLO, and the various issues that are raised by them. It seems to me that those who wish to pronounce dogmatically their intrusions into the lives of others, usually on the basis of their own religious beliefs but often based on little more than mindless prejudice, are undermining the capacity of these forums to fulfil that function.

I chose the word 'pontificate' quite deliberately in this context because of its etymology: those of us who express opinions with which the homophobes and godbotherers disagree may be guilty of injecting compassion and reason into the debate, but we certainly don't exhibit the supposed 'infallibility' that the far right imagine they share with pontiffs.

Aslan, the point still stands that a legally sanctioned marriage (and one prefered by religious extremists) in this country includes one between a gay man and a straight woman rather than between two gay men. This is part of the problem. The former couple would meet the current criteria of marriage but the actual marriage would be likely to end up in great unhappiness for all concerned.

Fortunately things are progressing. Spain is the latest country to validate same sex marriage (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3706414.stm). Events, of course, won't be onwards and upwards. But regardless of any setbacks, the gay movement will continue to work on this issue.

In response to David, I suggest that ALL Christians have a God in their own creation. How do you explain not only the differences between Christians regarding homosexuality but the myriad of denominations? That's why it is so amusing when Aslan refers to other Christians as "Christians" - as if they are not real ones. And where's the evidence that you are a real one? Christianity, unlike the laws of physics, is subjective.

A few words of comfort. When we achieve same-sex marriage here I don't think we'll be wanting to marry in your churches (or is that "churches"?). In fact, you couldn't pay me enough to set foot in them for one second.

Davidjs, looks like your dislike of churches is equally as emotive as aslan's dislike of homosexuality. pretty irrational mate

t.u.s

Sarantakos seems to be rely on personal evidence - not a proper survey, and I didn't see where Loader claimed a majority weren't interested, but I will accept that it is probably true that a majority of homosexuals currently have no personal interest in getting married.

I don't want to get into a debate about human rights; I am questioning this statement of yours:
"Moreover, homosexuals have never been denied the right to marry. They simply cannot marry someone of the same-sex. This is no more a violation of human rights than disallowing a person to marry someone under age, or someone who is already married."
You make the positive claim that it doesn't violate human rights -- so you must accept human rights and have your own criteria, or else your statement would have been pointless.

I'm also interested in what Christian teachings you, David and others disagree with or have difficulty accepting. Except for the clear moral truths: murder, theft, etc. (and even then) few people have a moral system that conflicts with their own desires, instead it is usually related to their own history, actions and interests. This is not limited to Christians or theists.

Most of those Christians I was talking about would not subscribe to a inerrant view of the Bible and instead view it as inspired, but others simply have a different interpretation of the Romans passages. So yes some of them don't *fully* "believe the Bible nor do they believe in the God revealed in the Bible." But if they believe Jesus is Christ and their view of God comes from personal revelation, how can you claim theological superiority, when you have no objective evidence that the Bible is perfect or that your intepretation is correct?

Deuc,

You said: "You make the positive claim that [banning gay marriage] doesn't violate human rights -- so you must accept human rights and have your own criteria, or else your statement would have been pointless."

My statements assume - for the sake of argument - that human rights exist. If this is so, then there is no violation since the recognised international instruments make no provisions for same-sex marriage.

This does not mean or imply that I agree with all these rights or that they are legitimate. If human rights are legitimate, then I ask again - not to debate, but to clarify - what are human rights? If you think they are simply the rights codified in the various covenants then on what basis were those particular rights chosen and others excluded?

You ask: "I'm also interested in what Christian teachings you, David and others disagree with or have difficulty accepting"

I don't object to ANY Christian teachings. You appear to be assuming that because some liberal, so-called Christians accept homosexuality, that it is therefore a Christian teaching?!?! That's absurd! The Bible makes it abundantly clear that homosexual acts are detestable and against God's law.

You ask: "how can you claim theological superiority, when you have no objective evidence that the Bible is perfect or that your intepretation is correct?"

This is now getting into the trustworthiness of Scripture and Biblical hermeneutics. There are many excellent books and online articles dealing with these issues. I don't have the time or space to discuss them in any detail. I would, however, be willing to discuss a particular verse or passage.

I have neither the time nor the the patience for a theological discussion - theology being so subjective for a start.

Rodney Croome asks whether the C M Act inadvertantly allows states to legislate for gay marriage - I guess time will prove whether that is true or not.

The issue I have is about active discimination against people because of who they are. I can no more change being heterosexual than I know my gay friends could change their orientation - just the thought of it is absurd - I just couldn't imagine a mate of mine making it with a woman. It is like discriminating against someone for having blue eyes.

Aslan asks what are human rights? - Once again trying to cloud the issue with semantics. Well, mate, if you were prevented from marrying a woman U loved because U R heterosexual - that would be discrimination - get it?

Aslan keeps ranting on about not being afraid - well Lady Macbeth, methinks you doth protest too much.

I found the following article in the NY Times - to quote an excerpt ""I told them I was going to give them something to be afraid of Christians about," he said." This article shows just how afraid many christians are in the good ole USA, when they seek to influence a company as large as microsoft.

Read on: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/22/national/22gay.html?th&emc=th

garra said: "It's their business, isn't it, rather than yours or mine?"

Whatever gays do in the bedroom is their business.

However, if gays do what they do in public toilets, then it is the public's business, and if gays want public and legal recognition of their relationships, it is also the public's business.

Ambo,

No-one is discriminating against gays for who they are. We are discriminating against THE RELATIONSHIP not the people. And, BTW, discrimination is not inherently bad. Everyone discriminates everyday. We choose where we shop, who cuts our hair etc etc. We rightly discriminate against convicted pedophiles by not letting them work in childcare centres. The question is whether the discrimination is justified. We obviously argue that it is justified. The Aust govt agrees, as has NZs Court of Appeal. Justice Gault noted that differential treatment existed but not discrimination and ‘to differentiate is not necessarily to discriminate. It is necessary to distinguish between permissible differentiation and impermissible differentiation amounting to discrimination.’ He added: "creating by law the status of child, adult, male, female is not discrimination though there may be discrimination in the law when rights or restrictions are attached to persons having such status. So too the establishment and maintenance of the institution of marriage is not itself discriminatory."

Sarantakos, a gay sympathiser, concluded (Alternative Law Journal 24/2 1999): "discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is as lawful as many other prohibitions of marriage, prohibitions which in principle restrict all people intending to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation. For instance, women cannot marry already married men; and men cannot marry their sister; and women cannot marry a 12-year-old person. All these prohibitions are discriminatory but lawful nonetheless; as lawful as the prohibition that same-sex couples cannot be allowed to marry. Arguing, therefore, for same-sex marriage on the basis of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is neither logically convincing, nor legally acceptable."

BTW, gays can change their orientation, and many have. See:
http://www.idoexist.com

Your imagination is totally irrelevant in determining what is true and what is possible...

The link Aslan is referring to has been established by Dr Warren Throckmorton, who claims that he can reorient gays to start fancying the opposite sex. His program is very controversial, particularly for troubled people who are unable to change their sexual preference, refer to the following link http://covenantnetwork.org/resources&statements/reparative-reply.htm. Most gays can't change. They are who they are. Attempts to change have resulted in misery for those who couldn't.

In addition Dr Throckmorton was fired from his advisory position with the Magellan Health Services due to the controversy of program and the negative results for many gays. The doctor claimed it was a gay conspiracy. Well I guess he would.

Furthermore, we do not procreate with our nearest and dearest relatives (mum, dad, sister, brother) for obvious reasons of genetic inbreeding. Even Aslan would be aware of that - I'm sure he overlooked that fact deliberately. And of course there is legislation protecting minors from adults, this is also commonsense.

There is no justification to discriminate against gays. Sexual behaviour in public toilets is not the sole preserve of gays, plenty of straight men get into a lot of action in public toilets.

If you are anti gay because of their relationships, then how would you feel about gays discriminating against you for being in a straight relationship. Clearly your relationship doesn't interfere with homosexuals' lives and vice versa.

If Aslan really doesn't care 'what gays do in the bedroom' what is his problem with them marrying?

Perhaps it time for Aslan and his ilk to simply BUTT out.

"My statements assume - for the sake of argument - that human rights exist. If this is so, then there is no violation since the recognised international instruments make no provisions for same-sex marriage."
And my questions assume that too, but if international law is your assumed source then your statement is still pointless because article 16 of the UDHR makes no provisions for hetero marriage either. It says that men and women have the right to marry but it doesn't say they have the right to marry *each other* or someone of their own choosing, so you can't use it for your criteria. Relying solely on the UDHR, none of my examples are violations.

"You appear to be assuming that because some liberal, so-called Christians accept homosexuality, that it is therefore a Christian teaching?!?!"
You have thoroughly misunderstood my post. If there is nothing in Christianity you have trouble with, don't you find it the slightest bit odd that your natural and learned prejudices & predispositions don't conflict with Xian teachings at all? (Not that you reject those Xian teachings.) Is it not more sensible to consider that each person's understanding of the Bible and God has been influenced by their views and vice-versa? That doesn't mean that you can't disagree with other people's views, or provide good arguments against them. But if they accept the basic tenets of Xianity and their differing understanding comes from personal revelation which you cannot discredit because you (and your books) lack contrary objective evidence, then it is mere arrogance to deny their status as Christians.

Are you sure you don't have trouble with any Christian teachings? If you were enslaved by a fellow Xian, would you obey that person sincerly or would you resist?

But Ambo is correct, this is a distraction - my point was that the Church is not unanimous on the issue so whether these people are "Christians" doesn't matter much, although it might relegate Christianity to the world's second most populous religion.

The discrimination passage is about legal challenges. Ambo has also said enough about "ex-gays".

Part 1

Ambo has said, “Rodney Croome asks whether the C M Act inadvertently allows states to legislate for gay marriage - I guess time will prove whether that is true or not.”

I think we can all agree on that though probably not DAVIDJS, who draws comfort from Spain legalising same sex marriage contra what is happening in the US and Australia. I wouldn’t draw too much comfort from Spain which is in what may well be terminal decline with a birth-rate of 1.3 vis a vis a necessary 2.1 to just maintain the population nor would I draw much comfort for that matter from anything out of Europe on this score where I believe the noted orientalist Bernard Lewis has predicted the Muslims will be the majority by 2100 – none of us will be around then but perhaps our children or grandchildren will be or at least those of us with children.

I realise I really shouldn’t get on any subject related to homosexuality – the homosexuals and there fellow travellers simply get too nasty. They cannot take any opposition and when their position comes under attack rationality goes out the window and hatred takes over.

I admit I was a touch provocative earlier in suggesting the tide has gone out on same sex marriage. None of us really know what will happen. Christians will remain vigilant. I know Deuc wants to wheel in liberal Christians who are soft on the issue, however I suggest the majority of pew warmers are quite conservative on the issue.
DavidJS is correct in suggesting religious “fundamentalist” (his term not mine) want the debate on same sex marriage to end but that on abortion to continue. I want DavidJS and others of his persuasion to know that we Christians will remain vigilant on the marriage issue (and we will be aided in this by the half hearted support amongst homosexuals for same sex marriage).

Part 2

As for the abortion issue, whilst we don’t yet have the numbers, the issue will never go away and eventually I believe society at large will turn against a practice that leads to the termination of 25% of all pregnancies – if for no other reason than the grief to the women concerned, especially as they grow older, the abysmally low birth-rate and not to forget the power of the 4D ultrasounds.

DavidJS, I want you to know that despite your rather snide remarks in your post of April 21st, I have been happily married to my wife for 37 years. We married (very) young by today’s standards as virgins and both have remained faithful to one another. We have two adopted children.

I found Garra’s contribution immature, angry and well, foolish.

Garra likes to label those of us who are Christian as “homophobes and godbotherers”, with beliefs “little more than mindless prejudice” – he probably enjoyed writing that but insulting and belittling your opponents does nothing to hide to shallowness of thought and argument. To suggest his opinion demonstrates “compassion and reason” is sheer self delusion.

Reason would tell you that same sex marriage undermines marriage which has at its centre the union of loving parents, male and female in the procreation of children who in turn are loved and nurtured and carry on, in their turn, human existence. Homosexual “marriage” is a denial of all this. It is barren. Oh, I know they may love one another, but one generation and its all over. It is a selfish love. That homosexuality leads to poorer health outcomes, promiscuity, higher levels of violence only reinforces the point.

This is my last post on the subject of homosexuality – it is an angry unproductive, barren sort of topic. I suspect if we had vilification on the basis of sexual orientation, an attempt would be made to silence me. Aah, free speech what an alien concept in such a tolerant society we are now blessed with.

But maybe on another issue DavidJS and I will agree. I hope so.

Ambo,

Get your facts rights. Throckmorton was not "fired" - his letter of invitation to join the new advisory council was rescinded as a result of pressure from homosexual advocacy groups. When the company discovered that Throckmorton had huge support in the community the company REINSTATED HIS INVITATION and he will now join the council. See: http://www.drthrockmorton.com/article.asp?id=135

BTW, Throckmorton doesn't just claim to, or attempt to, help gays change - he has successfully done so. And many gays are already in misery - that's why they seek treatment in the first place!

Deuc,

You know very well that Article 16 of UDHR is referring to heterosexual marriage. The mention of founding a family shows this even if the wording does not explicitly state that the two are to marry one another. This was clearly the intention of the 1948 framers, and you know very well this is the case so stop playing semantic games.

If you are asking me whether my actions sometimes don't match my beliefs then I am guilty as charged. But my mind is very much conformed to what the Bible teaches.

Orthodox Christianity holds that the Canon is closed and Bible is God's last word. Any personal revelation is of a personal nature and cannot conflict with Scripture.

I shouldn't be amazed (but still I am) of remarks aimed by some self-styled Christians towards other Christians. I guess it is inconvenient that some Christians firmly support gay relationships or feel they are neither here nor there. Indeed the very fact that the gay and lesbian movement in Australia has come so far is partly thanks to many heterosexuals, a percentage of whom are Christian, who happily and maturely accept relationships different to their own.

David whinges that gays get nasty when attacked on this forum. Apart from the mind-blowing hypocrisy, David should know most people, gay or straight, do get nasty when their relationships are attacked. What a surprise! And David, we do have anti-vilification laws in NSW. And no, your postings are not important enough to warrant their use.

Everybody on this board, gay and anti-gay, claim the have history on their side. But if history is veering towards greater democracy (as we see in Iraq, Ukraine or Lebanon), acceptance of BOTH homosexuality and same-sex relationships and religious difference will become the norm. What democracy cannot abide is religious authoritarianism or any sort of persecution of minority groups. In other words, Christians should be able to marry each other and gay people marry each other. That is their democratic right.

Finally, I'll say it again. If same-sex marriage undermines other marriages then people really have a problem with their marriages and should be a bit more responsible.

Yes it was referring to heterosexual marriage, homosexual marriage wasn't an issue then, but the text of the provision does not say otherwise nor does it say that people have the right to a wide choice of partners or that they can't be discriminated against in a wide variety of other ways. You don't believe in human rights, you don't know DavidJS' basis for human rights, using international law as an exhaustive & definitive source of human rights is worthless, and so your reply to him was an empty statement put forth to make a rhetorical point.

"If you are asking me whether my actions sometimes don't match my beliefs then I am guilty as charged. But my mind is very much conformed to what the Bible teaches."
At this point, I can only conclude that you are either not giving enough time to read and comprehend what I am saying, or that you are avoiding the issue.

"Any personal revelation is of a personal nature and cannot conflict with Scripture. "
You mean any personal revelation cannot prevail over scripture, rather than personal revelation does not conflict with scripture?

I find it quite funny, sad that David followed this lovely statement:
"They cannot take any opposition and when their position comes under attack rationality goes out the window and hatred takes over."

with this:
"Reason would tell you that same sex marriage undermines marriage which has at its centre the union of loving parents, male and female in the procreation of children who in turn are loved and nurtured and carry on, in their turn, human existence. Homosexual "marriage" is a denial of all this. It is barren. Oh, I know they may love one another, but one generation and its all over. It is a selfish love. That homosexuality leads to poorer health outcomes, promiscuity, higher levels of violence only reinforces the point."

Still no real arguments for a ban on marriage for homosexuals.

Deuc,

The reason why homosexual marriage wasn't an issue then and why the text of the provision does not explicitly rule it out, is because homosexuality was universally frowned upon and was in fact a criminal offence in nearly every country! Not surprisingly, it is not considered a human right by the UDHR.

Furthermore, to argue that the text is ambiguous regarding gay marriage because it wasn't an issue at the time highlights a logical contradiction. Human rights are, by definition, 'universal' in that all people everywhere recognise that they exist and have always existed. Gay marriage, however, cannot be a universal human right since it was, up until recent times, considered a psychological illness, and a perversion, not a 'right'.

You're obviously not following my argument so I'll spell it out for you:
1. Gay marriage advocates claim that prohibition of gay marriage is a violation of human rights.
2. I respond: What human rights? One cannot claim UDHR because that says nothing about gay marriage while explicitly endorsing heterosexual marriage and the family as the fundamental unit of society. So, if not the UDHR, then what rights?

You said: "Still no real arguments for a ban on marriage for homosexuals"

Actually, you're the one who apparently wants gay marriage, so the burden lies with you to come up with an argument why society should abandon the tried and tested heterosexual nuclear family in favour of 'almost anything goes' relationships. In fact, why stop with homosexuality, why not bigamy? Why can't you marry your dog?

Given that every other society that has abandoned the nuclear family has self-destructed, I see no reason why we should follow the same foolishness.

It reminds me of a line from a Kipling poem:

"There are only four things certain since Social Progress began --
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire"

"Human rights are, by definition, 'universal' in that all people everywhere recognise that they exist and have always existed. Gay marriage, however, cannot be a universal human right since it was, up until recent times, considered a psychological illness, and a perversion, not a 'right'."
By that logic, there is no human right to be free from discrimination on the basis of race or sex either.

"You're obviously not following my argument so I'll spell it out for you:"
Is it actually an argument?

You said:
"Moreover, homosexuals have never been denied the right to marry. They simply cannot marry someone of the same-sex. This is no more a violation of human rights than disallowing a person to marry someone under age, or someone who is already married."
You raised no issue of the UDHR or any other source in your original statement and I have already stated that I was not going to get into a debate about human rights. You made the claim that it wasn't a violation, a statement that is necessarily without substance if you have no definitive source for human rights, which the UDHR isn't.

"Actually, you're the one who apparently wants gay marriage, so the burden lies with you to come up with an argument why society should abandon the tried and tested heterosexual nuclear family in favour of 'almost anything goes' relationships."
Why should I come up with an argument for something that I and no one else here has claimed to support? I think it is only reasonable that the burden should lie on those who support legal discrimination, if they cannot come up with some rational basis for their position then the discrimination should be removed.

"In fact, why stop with homosexuality, why not bigamy? Why can't you marry your dog?"
We already have homosexuality and bigamy. You want to recriminalise homosexuality? If you can't work out a valid reason not to let people marry dogs, then I shouldn't expect you to be able to come up with a reason to ban people marrying other people.

In regard to the nuclear family, I certainly don't wish to make people abandon it. The nuclear family is not as traditional as one might think. In the past the extended family or the tribe took responsibility for raising children. Those duties were not just left to the immediate parents. Nonetheless most people appear to want heterosexual marriage. And a small minority want same-sex marriage - or least the opportunity. Both can co-exist. Indeed anti-gay bigots argue that gays only make up 1 percent of the population. If that is the case, nobody should worry about same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriages could not possibly make a jot of difference to way most people conduct their relationships - unless you believe homosexuality is innately more attractive than heterosexuality and by legalising same-sex marriage millions of heterosexuals would suddenly become gay.

Aslan hauls out the tired old "slippery slope" argument stating that same-sex marriage will lead to a myriad of marriage types. Where's the evidence for this? The onus is not on me to produce evidence. I'm simply articulating the case for same-sex marriage ALONG SIDE OF (not INSTEAD OF) opposite sex marriage. If other people wish to put the case for other forms of marriage they are free to do so. I don't wish to speak for them (whoever "they" maybe).

Deuc said in response to me: "By that logic, there is no human right to be free from discrimination on the basis of race or sex either."

Agreed - which means that the UDHR is totally inadequate for determining "human rights".

So, again I ask (because you continue to refuse to answer): On what basis can we determine what is and is not a human right? Or, more specifically, why should "gay marriage" be regarded as a human right?

You say you don't want to get into a debate about human rights, but this is precisely where the debate must take place since gay activists claim that being able to marry whoever you want regardless of sex is a basic human right.

I referred to the UDHR because it is generally and widely accepted as the standard for the definition of human rights. If you think this is inadequate (as you seem to) then what is your alternative?

BTW, how do you know the UDHR is not a definitive source for human rights? You're either begging the question, or you have some other standard which you're not telling us.

You ask: "Why should I come up with an argument for something that I and no one else here has claimed to support? I think it is only reasonable that the burden should lie on those who support legal discrimination, if they cannot come up with some rational basis for their position then the discrimination should be removed."

I don't think so! You can't shift the burden that easily. Gay marriage has never been allowed in the past, and we don't have it now. It is not recognised in any international covenant and it is not recognised under Australian law. If you want to invent gay marriage and give it social status and legal standing, then the burden lies with you to prove that gay marriages are for all intents and purposes exactly the same as heterosexual marriages and therefore deserving of all the rights and privileges that come with heterosexual marriage.

It is true that same-sex marriage has not been recognised legally in the past. However, gay relationships now do have considerable legal standing under state legislation that they didn't have before. Indeed the decriminalisation of homosexual acts in all states and territories has been a big step forward in regard to the human rights of gays. Btw, new human rights issues emerge quite frequently. The human rights of transsexuals would have been unknown in 1945. Now it is recognised that transsexuals a) exist b) have human rights and c) have particular rights that can't be applied to others but should be conferred - such as the right to change one's birth certificate to match their preferred gender identity. In other words, human rights are not static.

Aslan appears to be asking gay activists to prove a case for something that cannot actually be proved unless it is in existence in the first place. This is not a useful argument. At any rate, gay writers such as Jonathon Rauch and Andrew Sullivan have put the case. Not matter how many times gay activists put the case there will be those who will say that your argument isn't good enough. So, it's not a line of debate I usually enter into. It's a bit like asking women to prove why they should have the vote in times when they weren't allowed to vote.

Gay marriages are not the same as other marriages. They are between partners of the same sex. But all that would take is a simple adjustment to the 1961 Commonwealth Marriages Act. Or have another piece of legislation (maybe called the Civil Unions Act - that term has been touted about) which would confer on same-sex partners identical rights and responsibilities as the Commonwealth Marriages Act does for opposite sex partners.

"So, again I ask (because you continue to refuse to answer): On what basis can we determine what is and is not a human right? Or, more specifically, why should 'gay marriage' be regarded as a human right?"
This is my point: you don't accept human rights, you don't have any way to determine human rights and yet you state that it isn't a violation of human rights.

If one considers the right to marry to be a human right, then that's why its a breach of human rights. Others may simply consider large scale discrimination without just cause to be a violation of human rights.

It's inadequate because it does not fully define each right, because (as DavidJS said) new issues continually arise and because it contains general clauses. For instance, article 2 contains:
"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."

That is a general clause, sexual orientation fits nicely into "other status", as would other things not listed in the IDHR. I do not necessarily disagree with IDHR, but it is incomplete.

I haven't detailed any reason for homosexual marriage here, but there are some pretty obvious ones (equality, legal presumptions, encouraging families, uniform and simpler laws etc.) and others that you could find. But I have yet to find any decent arguments for a ban, despite much searching.

"[P]rove that gay marriages are for all intents and purposes exactly the same as heterosexual marriages..."
The law requires very little for a marriage to be valid except the formalities of the act. Just an intention by both parties to live in a matrimonial relationship, as considered by the parties, for some period of time. The courts don't care about the nature of that relationship or any other intentions or purposes. Why? Because there is far too much variation among hetero relationships! More than the difference between them and gay relationships. But that won't satisfy the homophobes.

Deuc says: "you don't accept human rights, you don't have any way to determine human rights and yet you state that it isn't a violation of human rights."

In presenting my argument, I am assuming for the sake of argument, that something called human rights exist. What I believe is irrelevant. It is gay activists who claim that prohibition of gay marriage is a violation of human rights yet they have no way of determining what is an is not a human right. What I pointed out was that even the generally accepted international covenants on human rights make no such provisions for gay marriage, and therefore, by these generally accepted standards of humans rights there is no clear violation.

Deuc says: "If one considers the right to marry to be a human right, then that's why its a breach of human rights."

And if one rejects the idea that marriage is a human right then it isn't violation. Indeed, marriage as a right is absurd. Can a plain looking girl who becomes a spinster because she never attracted the attention of a man claim that her rights have been violated?

Deuc says: "sexual orientation fits nicely into "other status""

Yes, it could fit there - but then again it might not! How do we decide whether "other status" was meant to cover this? Perhaps it also covers pederasty?

Deuc says he has "yet to find any decent arguments for a ban, despite much searching".

You obviously haven't looked very hard. Post your email (register a temporary one if necessary) and I'll send you pages of reasons.

Deuc says: "But that won't satisfy the homophobes"

Like all gay activists, you can't resist name-calling. How wonderfully "tolerant" of you...

"You obviously haven't looked very hard. Post your email (register a temporary one if necessary) and I'll send you pages of reasons."
Haven't found any *decent* ones. Why don't you just post them here?

Those who fear/hate homosexuals would not accept what I said, how is that namecalling?

Re reasons why gay marriage is a bad idea, Deuc asks: "Why don't you just post them here?"

Because, as I said, I have pages and pages of material but I can only post 350 words twice a day on this forum.

One general point though is that, in history, when societies have departed from heterosexual marriage as the norm and embraced alternative types of relationships, those societies have self-destructed within 3 generations. See the work of J. D. Unwin who changed his mind about marriage after doing this research, and Giambatista Vico.

Deuc says: "Those who fear/hate homosexuals would not accept what I said, how is that namecalling?"

Those people, like myself, who do not accept what you say neither hate nor fear homosexuals. We simply object to the practice of homosexuality, and the efforts of belligerent gay activists who attempt to undemocratically force their moral agenda upon everyone else (ie. through the courts or law reform committees).

And objecting to the practice of homosexuality is no less bigotted than objecting to the practice of Christianity. And nobody is forcing anybody to enter into same-sex marriage. Gay activists simply want it introduced as an option if gay men or lesbians wish to take it up voluntarily.

To say gay activists are forcing Christians to do anything they don't want to do is fundamentally dishonest. Nobody is forcing non-gays to enter into same-sex marriage, nobody is asking non-gays to abandon their current marriage practices. All we are asking for is a particular legislative change which will affect nobody but a small minority of the population.

And speaking of political honesty, if Aslan objects to the practice of homosexuality, does that mean s/he wants it outlawed? What is the agenda here?

Btw, the rule of law is an integral part of democracy. And fundamentalists Christians are not above trying to change the law for their own ends. Abortion is a salient example so spare me the hypocrisy.

"The practice of homosexuality"??

"Because, as I said, I have pages and pages of material but I can only post 350 words twice a day on this forum."
Then pick your best or provide a summary. I'm not looking for commentary, just either one compelling argument for a ban that is sound/well supported, or enough little ones.

"when societies have departed from heterosexual marriage as the norm and embraced alternative types of relationships, those societies have self-destructed within 3 generations."
No one has suggested departing from "heterosexual marriage as the norm". The cultural change required would probably take more than 3 generations itself.

"See the work of J. D. Unwin who changed his mind about marriage after doing this research, and Giambatista Vico."
Got anything peer reviewed, or at least a link to their work? And perhaps something more recent?

"Those people, like myself, who do not accept what you say neither hate nor fear homosexuals." Huh? Then they wouldn't *be* homophobes and so my statement doesn't apply to them. Suprisingly enough, when I referred to homophobes I was actually talking about homophobes.

LOL, law reform committees.

DavidJS,

Have I or anyone else here called you a Christophobe, bigot, hate-monger, Nazi or anti-Semite? These are the kinds of names thrown at those who rationally object to homosexuality.

You said: "To say gay activists are forcing Christians to do anything they don't want to do is fundamentally dishonest."

Wrong. If gay marriage is allowed, Christian groups, para-church organisations and Christian schools will be forced to employ homosexuals because if they don't, they will wind up in court or before the EO Tribunal on charges of discrimination on the basis of marital status. This is just one example of many that could be cited.

you ask: "if Aslan objects to the practice of homosexuality, does that mean s/he wants it outlawed? What is the agenda here?...fundamentalists Christians are not above trying to change the law for their own ends"

Agreed. No denying it.

In fact, I do not have a problem with gay activists lobbying govt to change laws. If they can convince govt to do so then more power to them!

What I object to, is when gay activists try to change the law UNDEMOCRATICALLY ie. using the courts and unelected, often activist, judges (who are sometimes homosexuals themselves eg. Kirby).

The reality is that homosexuals have got buckley's chance of directly lobbying govt to change the law, unless they catch the church napping and try and sneak legislation in quietly, or through lobbying parliamentary committees. If this fails then they resort to the courts. The courts are meant to apply the law, not usurp the power of govt. That is called separation of powers.

The Anti-Discrimination Act in NSW and its equivalents elsewhere already require organisations, unless they have some special exemption, not to discriminate against people on the grounds of homosexuality. Same-sex marriage has nothing to do with it. Moreover, there is no requirement to employ anyone on the grounds on homosexuality. Or marital status for that matter. Nor will that change if same-sex marriage becomes recognised. The Act is saying that homosexuality or marital status is NOT grounds for refusing someone a job, a service etc. That is rather different than forcing people to employ someone because they are gay or lesbian. And like I said, organisations can seek exemptions under the Act.

To date, on a whole range of issues, gay activists have been successful in achieving rights around immigration, defacto relationship status, equal age of consent and decriminalisation which have been achieved through the parliament rather than the courts.

Btw what is this "the church"? I suspect it is simply a political outfit which pays lip service to religion.

Deuc,

One good argument (among many) is that if homosexuals are allowed to marry then the laws of intestacy apply to their relationships. Specifically, if one partner dies then the other partner has exclusive rights to their property. The problem here is that many homosexuals - especially those with significant assets - were once married to women and have children. Therefore, it means that a homosexual partner can claim all assets (irrespective of the intentions of the dead partner) and the dead partner's children get nothing. That is unjust. In the unlikely scenario that a homosexual wants to explicitly exclude their children from inheritance then they should write a will stating so.

You said: "No one has suggested departing from "heterosexual marriage as the norm".

Homosexual activists have indeed said this.

"See the work of J. D. Unwin who changed his mind about marriage after doing this research, and Giambatista Vico."
Got anything peer reviewed, or at least a link to their work? And perhaps something more recent?

Peer review is irrelevant - the evidence speaks for itself. Recent writing is irrelavant - especially in relation to historical analysis.

"Those people, like myself, who do not accept what you say neither hate nor fear homosexuals." Huh? Then they wouldn't *be* homophobes and so my statement doesn't apply to them. Suprisingly enough, when I referred to homophobes I was actually talking about homophobes.

When homosexual activists/supporters use the term "homophobe" they mean ANYONE who objects to homosexuality. The strict "homophobe" who has an irrational fear of homosexuals must be very rare indeed. I do not know any, nor have I met any.

DavidJS,

If militant homosexuals apply for job at Christian school (and they will) the school may be forced to employ them or face penalties from the EOC. Exemptions are not automatic nor enduring - they can be taken away and gay activists have campaigned for this.

Yes, some changes have been achieved through parliament. Church was caught napping. Not any more.

"The church" is simply the united Christian community - the most numerous and powerful constituency in the country.

Fine Aslan, if you didn't want to present your reasons then you don't have to, but the implication is that you don't have any.

"Homosexual activists have indeed said this."
No one in this thread has said that, and any "homosexual activists" who have seriously suggested it are very few and far between.

"Peer review is irrelevant - the evidence speaks for itself. Recent writing is irrelavant - especially in relation to historical analysis."
I don't know what the evidence says, or if it is accurate. Peer review would give me a good idea of the study's veracity. There have been many historical discoveries in the last 70+ years Aslan, and newer studies would be open to better criticism.

"When homosexual activists/supporters use the term "homophobe" they mean ANYONE who objects to homosexuality."
That is clearly a false generalisation. The "strict" homophobe is one who hates or fears homosexual people, and they are not rare at all. In many situations a person may be using it in the wrong sense or it may seem like it is being used incorrectly when it actually isn't. Often a person's language or claims demonstrate that they have contempt for homosexuals in addition to contempt for homosexuality. Eg. a priest denouncing homosexuality is not, but a priest who denounces homosexuals for being promiscuous is. It is also understandable that many people don't know the proper meaning of the word, that it doesn't refer to homosexuality and it doesn't refer solely to fear. Also, because homosexuality is an innate or at least deep-seated part of their personality, many see no reason to draw a distinction.

Deuc,

I offered the argument regarding intestacy. See above. I have plenty more but I see no reason to submit them here and it is impossible to do so anyway given the restrictions of this forum. I have submitted them on several occasions where they count - to parliamentary committees considering gay law reform.

Regarding homosexuality in history, see:
- Gibbon, Edward, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. 1-6, 1776-1788.
- Peter Green, trans., Juvenal: The Sixteen Satires, Penguin Books, 1967 (especially 2nd satire, where he slams homosexuality).
- Unwin, J. D., "Sexual Regulations and Cultural Behavior," address to Medical Section of British Psychological Society.
- Lively, Scot and Kevin Abrams, The Pink Swastika, 4th edition, Veritas Aeterna Press, 2002.

Regarding importance of heterosexual marriage in society see:
- Vico, Giambattista, The New Science, 3rd Ed, trans. by Max Harold Fisch and Thomas Goddard Bergin.
- Unwin, J. D., Sex and Culture, 1934.

"a priest denouncing homosexuality is not [homophobia], but a priest who denounces homosexuals for being promiscuous is."

Why? Homosexuals ARE promiscuous - that is a fact. See the admissions of homosexuals themselves in:
- K. Jay et al, The Gay Report: Lesbians and Gays Speak Out About Sexual Experiences and Lifestyles 275 (1979)
- Garrett Prestage, et. al., Sydney Men and Sexual Health. Sydney: HIV AIDS & Society Publications, 1995. This report found that 26% of homosexual men had 21 to 100 partners in a lifetime; nearly 41% had 101 to 1000 partners; and 17% had over 1000 partners.

Like homosexuality itself, promiscuity is a moral issue, and a priest - or anyone else for that matter - is free to make such moral judgments.

"because homosexuality is an innate or at least deep-seated part of their personality, many see no reason to draw a distinction"

Homosexuality is not innate part of a person. Many homosexuals reject such "genetic" determinism. Many have in fact changed sexual orientation. True, homosexuality is usually deep-seated, but so is Christianity to Christians. Attack Christianity all you like - I won't take it personally.

You were being serious?!

*Sees "The Pink Swastika"*

Look Aslan, I don't think there's anything that anyone can gain from continuing this, so I won't, but for the lurkers I'll finish up.

It's not the easiest distinction to see and others may reasonably disagree with my particular example. A priest denouncing homosexuality because homosexuals are more likely to be promiscuous would not be homophobic. Nor is the priest in my example necessarily a homophobe, but there are indicators: attacking homosexuals instead of homosexuality, attacking them as a group/stereotyping, drawing an unnecessary distinction between homosexuals and heterosexuals. These things suggest that the contempt is not limited to homosexuality. Being against gay rights is not the same as disapproving of homosexuality; the former is homophobic because it harms homosexuals and (duh) does nothing to stop homosexuality.

Innate is not equivalent to genetic, and Aslan would have a hard time finding any evidence to support his claim that "many have in fact changed sexual orientation" except from obviously biased sources.

Aslan,

Even though I know it won't have impact on your entrenched views, you should know that your argument that same sex marriage should not be allowed because of the issues you have with intestacy legislation is completely without basis. All states and territories, execept SA, already recognise same sex de facto relationships in intestacy legislation. Thus, a surviving same sex de facto partner is treated the same way as a surviving opposite sex de facto or married partner. It is also grossly inaccurate to say "many homosexuals...were once married to women and have children". That's simply not true either.

And, FYI, peer review is not irrelevant. It is what distinguishes informed and accurate writing from self-serving propagantist drivel.

Having read your many comments on this forum, I can't help but wonder if you've ever actually met a "homosexual". I suspect not, otherwise you'd realise that most of what you write simply does not reflect the realities of the lives of Australian gays and lesbians.

RAM - luv the moniker. R U new to OLO?

No doubt Aslan won't get what U're sayin' - no matter there're plenty here who do.

I figure nows as good a time as any - maybe I'll get pilloried from both sides of the political fence (which is somehow appropriate) 'cos I'm bi - have always found both sexes attractive - which can be very difficult sometimes being somewhat betwixt and between. I find I go thru phases where I'm more attracted to one sex than the other.

If, a very big if because I really doubt I would want to marry, but I would like to think that the person with whom I wanted to spend the rest of my life would be able to marry me if thats what we wanted. It would be no one else's business - least of all Aslan's. I don't see how me marrying a woman would mess with Aslan's life or anyone else's.

MY LIFE people.

Deuc,

Deuc says homophobia implies "attacking them as a group/stereotyping"

Speaking of stereotyping, dismissing anyone who objects to homosexuality and the agenda of gay activists is automatically branded as "homophobic", "bigoted", "intolerant", "narrow-minded", "ignorant", "nazi" etc etc. If this is not stereotyping then I don't know what is.

Deuc says: "Being against gay rights is not the same as disapproving of homosexuality; the former is homophobic because it harms homosexuals and (duh) does nothing to stop homosexuality."

No-one is against gay rights as such. They deserve legal protection like anyone else. The issue is the prohibition of gay marriage.

"Innate is not equivalent to genetic"

Then what does innate mean if not reference to genetics?

"Aslan would have a hard time finding any evidence to support his claim that "many have in fact changed sexual orientation" except from obviously biased sources."
See:

http://narth.com/menus/cstudies.html
http://www.idoexist.com
Deuc would have a hard time refuting all the evidence supporting re-orientation therapy and its successes, except from obviously biased sources.

RAM, I am aware of the current status of intestacy laws. I was speaking specifically of SA where such provisions for gays do not presently exist.

Yes, I had several homosexual friends. 2 are now dead - from AIDS. Died in their early 30s.

You say: "most of what you write simply does not reflect the realities of the lives of Australian gays and lesbians"

Most of what I write comes from the self-reporting of gays and lesbians eg. SMASH Report, The Gay Report, Andrew Sullivan's books/articles, After the Ball by Kirk and Madsen, The Male Couple by McWhirter and Mattison. etc etc.

"Deuc says homophobia implies 'attacking them as a group/stereotyping'"
No, I said that "attacking them as a group/stereotyping" is an indicator of homophobia.

"Then what does innate mean if not reference to genetics?"
A couple of definitions from dictionary.com: "Possessed as an essential characteristic; inherent" and "Not established by conditioning or learning". Fingerprints would be a good example of the latter.

''GAY MARRIAGE''

To introduce a system,or recocnize that a gay marriage is acceptable is an insult to our past generations and to us,its showing that our moral stance is corrupted and our freedoms are just a little to ''out there''.
Consider the following-
*The disision by the Howard government to ban the recognition of foriegn gay marriage is a sign that our nations morals can not be influrenced by the morals or ''lack off'' other nations.
*Federal law should always have precedence over all states in any laws,if the states have no such laws the federal government should always block a attempt by a state to pass a law,if it is controversal and may not be accepted by other

states,or it is a strong moral ethic principle that has divided our community such as ''gay marriage''.
*Same sex marriages ARE dysfucntional and the participants are second-rate,and you cant deny rights to a subject if that subject never had rights in the first instance,in this case ''gay marriage''.
*Marriage will never ''grow increasingly irrelevant and wither away''.
*Same-sex marriage should not be provided with any type of official public acknowledgement

It intensiely annoys me when people selectively quote from my writings, as seems to occur frequently and as Aslan has done here.

The article to which Aslan refers is not, in any way, an argument against gay marriage. It is merely suggesting that, as for heterosexual partners, marriage is not the be-all and end-all for all same sex couples. Some will prefer other forms of relationship recognition.

Anyone who reads the article would be aware that I argue in it that there should be at least three methods of recognising relationships (marriage, civil unions/registration and de facto laws) that should be available to all partners, same sex and opposite sex.

The following is original work written by and copyright to L.L. 2006
Will be on show at a theatre near you...so watch this space...

It is directed against the Federal Government (and anyone who shares) thier discrimination and denial to provide me as an Australian citizen, equal relationship recognition as that to other citizens of Australia based on our sexual orientation.

We Have A Dream...

Excuse me, I have something to share.
My children are not born yet, and I have this to share with the world and for our dream to become real just before they arrive -
I am being denied a human right, a basic human right - The right to celebrate my love.
The right for my love, which is as real as the very grass you walk on and the birds in the trees, and the food that you eat, and the love that you feel for your husband or wife.
The right to call my love my wife, the right to marry her, the right for our love to be recognised as yours is because I love a woman and mot a man and I am a woman.

My basic rights are being violated. The biggest part of me - my heart, has been held in contempt. Looked down upon and dismissed. In the name of what? Blasphemy! Not religion. Do not use the word religion to cover up and excuse your hatred and denial - your prejudice and your discrimination - as none of these things are high or blessed or godly or spiritual.
Love is.
(I studied and taught Sunday school when I was young. I know the spirit.)
And Love is the Highest Law.
So do not dismiss our love with your fear that we are different to you.
We all come from the same place (or at least we are supposed to)
How many of our for-runners learnt and taught us to love one another - in every colour, shape, culture, background.
Now it's sexual it seems, now it's personal!
Why? - Because of your denial....

We Have a Dream Continued...

You have denied the young to marry and commit to one another with love as their reason.
Enough! That is enough!
Instead, take heed, in common sense -
Bring home the young to their friends and families - and allow everyone their natural right - irrespective of colour, creed, sexual orientation - their right to love one another and have their chosen families unite, marry, celebrate love.

That is what we are here for.
Love is the highest law.
I am not offended you are heterosexual; I do not judge you for it, likewise, do not judge me. Let love be the judge, for, in its wisdom love does not judge.

I could never, would never deny you the right to marry your wife or your husband. But you take that away from me by not giving me my love to have as my wife.
Can you imagine someone taking your beloved away from you? That is what you are doing to us by not "allowing" us to celebrate our love the way you can.
Can you feel what it might feel like to be in someone else's shoes when those shoes are really just like the very ones you walk in?

Just for a moment - one moment, imagine if I told you could not marry your fianc¨¦e - you could not! I was not allowing you to because I judged you for being heterosexual. I would never do such a thing. So do not do it to us. It is not for you to choose whom I love or whom I marry just as it is not for me to choose whom you fall in love with.

The injustice now shared with you. Let my children know it is safe and we are all free to love each other in their world when they arrive.

Love is our right.
- L.L