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 $@#*.