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.