Brian Greig is obviously passionate about the gay rights movement.

As a Christian I find his persistence in pushing for government acceptance of “the rights to marriage” absurd.

Classifying Christians as “Middle Ages” is also offensive. After all this is largely a civil issue and has little to do with what Christians think. The legal system has been gradually and systematically eroded to the point of no return – all in the name of getting on with the times.

But I understand his frustration at the hypocritical stance of the Howard gang; for all extensive purposes gays and lesbians have most of their civil rights like normal couples. So to remain “middle of the road” must be frustrating to our voting compatriots.

I think issues of that magnitude should not be left to the government of the day to decide. A national referendum should be the way to go. Too much is at stake.

Historically, most governments have had no long term vision past the next election. They bend under pressures from the loudest minority group of the day instead of casting visions for our grand children.

Brian also being a Christian, and a modern thinker puts some traditional or fundamentalist Chistians offside, however there have been calls from the Liberal MP Peter Lindsay in the seat of Herbert, who is also a Christian, to move toward legalising a "gay union."

Whilst I am not gay, I do have a "gay" female friend. I find her to be a pleasant human being, no different in aspiration than anyone else I have ever met, so "normal" in fact that her sexuality is not taken into account by anyone who knows her. This being the case, I have always failed to see why she or any other gay person should be discriminated against because of sexuality.

The bible I read says "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" as a major platform, and I for one have no problem in complying with that teaching.Peter Lindsay says gays are no different to anyone else, and that 10% of his church is gay.

On that basis, the ALP should be more progressive on the issue than the conservatives, however not a sound from them. Perhaps their Leader who is a conservative Christian himself may have something to do with that, perhaps he is holding the ALP back at a critical time in their history.

"After all this is largely a civil issue and has little to do with what Christians think."

I wish I could frame that comment and distribute it around to some select individuals and lobby groups coach. It is exactly right - so why did so many supporters of the marriage ban bill in parliament churn out all the Christian/biblical anti-gay chestnuts?

Somehow, it almost always turns out to be the "Christian" organisations that are the greatest enemies of equal civil rights and responsibilities for same-sex couples.

I agree coach, “Classifying Christians as “Middle Ages” is also offensive.” Christan's aren't middle ages, prehistoric would be a more apt description.

Greg, stop trying to divide Australia. I don't care what your sexual orientation is, just get on with it. We are sick of hearing people like you whinge constantly about how you need more rights. But I can understand that you and the rest of your PC cronies, won't be content until you drag this country down into the abyss of chaos. Fools like you are so selfcentred that all you are after, is what you want and forget about the rest of us.

Being a christian only shows us how much more dangerous your approach is.

What about all the other minorities that may want acceptance of their beleifs and ways of life, I suppose you will support Islams desire to introduce Muslim controls upon us. Or the right wing christians desire to return us to superstition and their debauched religious institutions and leaders.

What if I wanted to marry two people of the opposite sex, or introduce a ban on marriage because it leads to divorce, unhappiness and economic disasters. Will you support that, what about a ban on political parties. They are proven to be dishonest, corrupt and damaging to the future of the peole and country

You lost your seat in parliament because your ego was bigger then you intellect. You could have done lots more for your people by supporting the majority. You must be terribly confused about your own sexuality, to want to drag it up and flaunt it, then demand we listen and take the action you want.

All my friends of both sexes, who are differently orientated, cringe when they hear you, the Eva cox's and Rodney Croomes of the world open their mouths.

But when you are PC, religious and insecure, we can expect nothing less. Get a life and get on with enjoying it whilst you can and stop whinging.

I would like to see the option for all couples - whether same or different sexes be able to formally and legally acknowledge their relationship as a civil union. This should replace the very confusing notion of de facto relationships which is too vague and sometimes comes about unintentionally.

It should be possible for two people to live together in a relationship without having to forfeit their rights if they split up. It should also be possible for two people to live together in a relationship to choose to exchange vows of love and responsibility towards each other and thereby have the same legal rights as those who are married.

'Marriage' is something different and special and I would personally prefer it to stay as it is.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Homosexuals who flaunt their homosexuality appear to be envious of the marriage ceremony. Two people who have a dinkum relationship should be entitled to cover themselves legally for the same benefits but without the marriage bit.
A formal service of some kind will be just as satisfying .
And it is about time they stopped describing themselves as "gay", it is a good little word that has been hijacked and does not fit.

Brian, thanks for your piece, it's an interesting proposition. And I was upset also at the ALP's seeming right-shift to court the "family" vote.

However, ALP state Governments (most notably Tasmania) have done a reasonable job of moving the legislative agenda forward in recognition of the rights of same-sex couples.

If the 2004 election had any lessons, it's that people need to feel relatively comfortable (relaxed and comfortable?) in order to consider changing their vote on the basis of a social agenda.

Saying to some one who is afraid they're going to lose their house when interest rates go up if they're concerned about same-sex marriage rights (or childcare availability, healthcare for seniors, funding of education, Indigenous poverty, etc) is a little like asking a drowning man if he thinks salinity is a problem. The vast majority of people will tell you that what changed their votes were economic issues, not social ones.

What's more, I don't think the Liberal backbenchers' support of same-sex unions IS evidence of a seismic shift - it's merely a political ploy for Howard to have his cake and eat it too: the same way he's facilitating an internal debate on childcare and abortion.

By letting his backbenchers off the leash he appeals to a his own demographic by expressing the "Party" view and the Party retains its "democracy" by appealing to another view using backbenchers to voice dissent. If the Government holds the line, at least the backbenchers have been heard. If they change their mind, well, that's democracy for you.

Sadly, I think it's a shrewd win-win rather than the evidence of a groundswell of community change you're hoping for.

Playing Devil’s Advocate we should really look at all marriage before condemning homosexual marriage.

I will leave aside, for the time being, the majority reason for marriage that is when two people love each other and wish to raise a family (by natural, normal methods) the traditional marriage that we all understand.

A few scenarios that maybe should not be defined as marriage are:
An attractive young woman marries a rich old man; she gets financial security he gets his rocks off. Have you seen how often this happens? They both get something from the union but should this be called marriage.

An elderly couple decide that they like each other and want to live together, the retirement village they live in will not let them live together unless they are married and their friends would be horrified. They marry have separate bedrooms and have a wonderful friendship. But is it marriage?

School sweethearts who marry because it is the thing to do when they leave school they grow apart and divorce three years later.

My idea of marriage is a commitment for the rest of my life to another person.

Leaving the obvious moral questions aside if two people wish to commit to each other for life then surely we should have some form of recognition of that commitment.

There are many sham heterosexual marriages we condone and there are many loving, long term homosexual relationships we condemn.

On the defacto question when I was transferred to Canberra to work for the Government I applied for relocation assistance for my live in girlfriend who was moving with me. I was told by The Bureau I was working for, that we were not in a defacto relationship so no assistance. When my girlfriend applied for the dole before finding a job she was told she was not eligible because we were in a defacto relationship!! How very strange.

Whatever time Brian Greig thinks the federal government's policies on marriage belong to does not matter. The fact is that John Howard is the first Prime Minister for about 30 years to have a majority in the senate.

Meanwhile the Australian Democrats did not retain a single senate seat in the election which handed Mr Howard this historic victory. There should be a lesson about who is out of touch in this for the Australian Democrats, I think they haven't got it. Rumor is that they will be removed from the senate at the next election.

If this is anything to go by then there was good reason why Brian Greig is not sitting in our Gov anymore. While I’m quite happy to see gay marriage/unions politicking the issue is a bit silly. Also why does the author say that labor didn't do anything and liberals have? Was the country ready for the laws in 85?, did the liberals rush these new laws in as soon as they got into power? Has Howard made changes to the federal marriage act?

Maybe i'm missing something here but i just can't understand what the logical argument against legitimising same-sex unions is.
There was an article on this forum that summed up the opposing arguments fairly well: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2185
So is there more to it than that?

As for Labor, well it's a curious idea that they might actually be in "opposition" to the government one day. However when i questioned my magic 8-ball about this it said "Outlook not so good" so i'm not holding my breath.
I think Seether summed up the politics of the matter very well in his post above. It's unlikely to be a major vote-winner for Beazley to run with this one.

Our Western culture, government, law, and society (were) clearly based on Christian principles. The concern for the minorities, a commitment to human rights, and respect for the greater good all grew out of Christian convictions.

For the last 50 odd years, (the church) has been gradually displaced by the reign of secularism.

The permissiveness of modern society can be traced directly to the fact that modern society acts as if God is powerless or does not exist.

Without God, there is no basis for identifying evil and good. But when the christians speak, on any issue (moral or not) of public debate, they inevitably find themselves at odds with a culture of non-belief; they are criticized, by the new lost secular culture, as outcast, outdated and irrelevant

The very notion of right and wrong is now discarded (or distorted) by secular society.

“Right and wrong” has been changed to “rights for wrongs”.

What was once “wrong” is now made right by “rights”; anything is permissible and if the majority don’t like it…tough… (Complete abandonment of all morality and disregard for the consequences).

This reality is observed on our TV shows, news, movies, video games etc…

To think that this new godless generation is going to govern our countries is nightmarish stuff.

Prejudice is always wrong. I have nothing against homosexuals. But secularist hypocrisy in general is summed up by the comedienne and journalist Julia Gorin.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/julia/gorin120105.php3

In the scramble for each minority interest, its forgotten the very civilisation that allows the freedom to pursue them is imperiled. We live in civilisation that can't even reproduce itself. 'Why Nations Die'

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GH16Aa02.html

A geo-political journalist of singular quality will put all these kinds of debates in context. The complete Spengler Asiatimes online

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/others/spengler.html

So in the end it amounts to a non-issue.

I don't know what exactly you consider to be a "non-issue" Martin, but I can assure you for the many people in long-term, committed same-sex relationships missing out on the legal rights and responsibilities - in areas of taxation, welfare, public sector superannuation, defence force pensions and parental duties, just to name a few off the top of my head - to which they should be entitled, because of an unjustifiable, increasingly redundant prejudice, it is very much not a "non-issue".

And no, contrary to your sweeping, unqualified generalisation, society would not be "imperiled" for granting legal equality for same-sex couples via civil unions. Two men or women officially committing to one another has no direct effect on the marriage or relationship of two heterosexual people unless they are particularly insecure in their relationship.

Beware the person who includes the line "I have nothing against (fill in the gap), but..." In almost all cases they do.

Dear queerpenguin,

Reading the articles in the links should have made it clear that rampant secularism is what is putting our civilization in peril. A passionate, radicalized Islam senses the weakness, and grows more assertive day after day while attacks against, Christianity, the Church and traditional morality continue. If it wasn’t for these essential components of western civilization debate about individual rights would never have got this far. Julia Gorin the comedienne and journalist sums this spirit up I think:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/julia/gorin120105.php3

So read the articles by ‘Spengler’ of the Asiatimes. You’ll understand how the rights of not just homosexuals, but everyone are dependent on whether Islamism is defeated. It is this that imperils civilization.

P.s. Is it not encouraging that the PM has said “I would be opposed to a recognition of civil unions, although I am strongly in favour ... of removing any property and other discrimination that exists against people who have same-sex relationships."

queerpenguin,

I read your words and feel your frustration.

However (there is always a ‘but’) you must understand and accept the fact that homosexuals are the minority in the social scheme of things and therefore must be grateful for whatever concessions they get from a free democratic system. Spare a thought for those who are really harassed and even executed for their lifestyle choices under different regimes.

With every privilege comes responsibility. What I got from your last post is that you don’t seem to care much for the feelings of others as long as you get what you deem is rightly yours.

Let me tell you that other people have a problem with atypical lifestyles. Especially when their beliefs and values are vastly different than what you may consider ‘normal’.

It seems that once again it is up to the majority to bite the bullet and ‘accept’ the minorities or else get to ware all the nasty labels.

Coach

Indigenous Australians are also a minority - should they also be "grateful for whatever concessions" the majority allows them to have?

Concerned Citizen,

No – Without getting into the real benefits that Native Australians are actually getting – I think this is an unfair comparison on your part and should not have been brought here.

The minority group in question here has made a lifestyle decision to become a minority and decided that the rest of us should support it. And we did.

The point I was making is that it this lifestyle is not considered ‘right’or acceptable for most other people; and the minority should exercise more tact in dealing with the people who still adopt the normal way of life and must tolerate them ...or else

As a follower of Christ Jesus I love these people but like him I hate their choices.

Coach

There are no "choices" involved. Just as you, a straight person, can't "choose" to be gay, a gay person can't "choose" to be straight, and nor should they.

There is nothing wrong with being gay and as for what the Bible supposedly says...

Should I also stone to death my neighbour whom I know is having an affair?

And after I've murdered him, would it then be okay for me to sit down to a nice plate of shellfish for dinner?

Not according to the Bible.

It seems the "sin" of homosexuality is the only thing Christians follow strictly from the Bible - the rest is not applicable to today's times.

If you're not willing to stone to death an adulterer, then why are you willing to accept society's discrimination against gays and lesbians?

Coach: your attitude is sadly typical of "Christians" who have hatred in their heart and try to rationalise it by saying they "hate the sin, not the sinner". By that very twisted logic, one could conclude that they don't hate women, merely the "sin" of being female.

I know it is necessary for you to believe that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice to validate your prejudices, so that you can then construct your fear and hatred around a "chosen lifestyle" but many people, a lot of Christians included, see past this charade.

Jogging 5kms a day is a lifestyle choice. Buying fetta cheese at the deli instead of ricotta is a lifestyle choice. I no more chose to be gay than you "chose" to be straight - or, for that matter, to be a Christian.

Homosexuals should not have to feel "grateful" for anything - it is a right, not a privilege, for those of us in long-term relationships to expect full rights as law-abiding, tax-paying civil citizens.

In fact, if you had read my post properly and not selectively, you would have seen I talk about responsibilities as much as I talk about rights. Gay people realise full equality necessarily entails both these things.

You can imply I am selfish and inconsiderate of others' feelings all you want, but I know this is not true and I know it's not true for the vasy majority of my gay and lesbian friends and family.

I really struggle to understand how people can get all 'ooh its going to tear about our society if we let men marry men and women marry women'. Really? Why? Are all the straight people out there suddenly going to decide they are gay?

As a straight person with gay friends, I fail to see how stopping my friends from making public statements about their love and committment 'holds up' our society. I guess we'll have to give it fifty years or so, as most surveys show younger people are pro-gay marriage (or dont care), so presumeably the laws will eventually change.

Eh. Meant to say "tear apart" not "tear about". Damn not proof-reading.

What tends to overshadow this debate about same-sex civil unions is the moral debate about the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality. But that is not actually the real issue here because unless i'm mistaken it is not against the law to be gay or act gay, so the moralists have already lost out on that one as far as the law is concerned.
The issue is whether or not the entitlement of marriage and the various legal benefits and protections that accompany it should be extended to include two people of the same sex or should the discrimination remain as man + woman only. You could argue about semantics but that is really just a superficiality. As for the morality arguement, it may have some weight but it seems to be more of a last ditch effort by moralists to defend the remaining few areas of the gay-rights battlefield that they still hold. And as far as Christian moralists go, they may well be correct that acts of homosexuality are a sin or abomination in the eyes of God, but isn't that for God to judge and not the place of man to pass judgement on his fellows?

I don't see a problem with same sex marriages, after all, marriage isn't what it used to be.

There used to be a thing called the marriage 'contract', which one side could only depart from with a good reason, established before the Courts. Now there is no contract, and marriage is essentially meaningless anyway. It is just a piece of paper, that no longer serves to keep people together.

Many of the changes in relationships are positive: no one could now argue that a man has the inaliable right to sex with his wife just because they are married. Marriage is also not seen as a justification for domestic violence or a right of control over another persons finances and behaviour.

Children born out of wedlock are no longer seen as disadvantaged and cannot be discriminated against.

And look at the words: wedding, marriage, wedlock: they all imply a permanence of the joining of two people. This concept is so patently old fashioned that maybe we should look at different words for the relationship, because what happens today is certainly are certainly not weddings, marriages and wedlocks.

Even the idea of the family is gone, as evidenced by a recent TV advert about a "people mover" with the variety of 'families' featured.

So what is marriage good for? If it is good for anything then maybe society should strengthen it, to maybe force people to consider that it is not to be entered into lightly, with some form of penalties for those breaking the 'contract', instead of the continued weakening of the institution of marriage that has happened since 1975 in Australia.

If not, then declare marriage open to anyone, in any form of close personal relationship, maybe even the recognition of plural marriages?

What is there to lose that hasn't already been lost?

The first thing I would point out is that Democrats Senator Greig is not above using stereotypes to prejudge the political motivations of his political opponents. It seems that when it comes to stereotyping and prejudice, it is permissible for the pink PC brigade to do it, but it is PC verboten for rednecks. Perceptive people call that hypocrisy.

Senator Greig admits that neither side of Parliament is keen on giving gay marriages the green light. The reason why, of course, is that it would be electoral suicide for any party which openly supported it. Mr Greig”s fanciful claim that the majority of Australians support gay marriages is obviously not a view held by either the Coalition or Labor. Most people grudging conceded that homosexuality should be decriminalised, but that did not bestow respectability on the practice.

And this is what the homosexuals most desperately want. Respectability. Their continuing campaigns to have homosexual unions legitimised, is their way of attaining respectability by fait accompli.

Unfortunately for homosexuals, the majority of people in my socio economic caste view homosexuality either with distaste or hilarity. The low regard which Australians have for homosexuals is further eroded by prominent homosexuals like Bob Brown openly endorsing anti Australian ideals like Republicanism, “sorry” books, multiculturalism and reflexive anti Americanism, while going into bat for traitors like David Hicks. Their rationale seems to be, that as an “oppressed” minority themselves, they feel the need to hit back at the society which shuns them by joining forces with any other minority who have a bit of a public relations problem.

Talking about electoral suicide, why don't we get bipartisan support for voluntary euthanasia, when about 80% of Australians have wanted it for years and this support crosses the whole of the political spectrum? Surely that wouldn't be electoral suicide, would it? Answer: Because the Pope doesn't want it.

And that's basically why gay people don't get equality.

http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/new/incathcircles/iccbottompg2vol8no3.htm

'Vatican Announces Campaign Against Same-Sex Marriage
The Vatican has announced a global campaign against gay marriage in a strongly-worded document released by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The document, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons," restates the Vatican's views that homosexual unions are immoral, unnatural and harmful. It says that Catholic politicians have a "moral duty" to oppose legislation permitting gay marriage and adoption by gay people.' etc etc etc.

So apparently a substantial number of our so-called representatives have a "moral duty" to put the Pope first when it comes to decision making. And it shows, and not just about gay rights either.

If just some Australians are denied justice, then justice is not guaranteed for any of us. And unfortunately, many Australians seem to be unable to understand that.

Please consider this.
The concept of the law is that it plays no favourites. We are all equal before it. At least in theory. Now if we can legally discriminate against a group for religious reasons [the pope or the bible said they are evil] or social reasons [we just don't like "those" people] then why not other groups as well? Why not Jews, Christians, red haired people? After all we can all find a reason to be against some group? And if it is allright to write bias into the laws against one group then why not others? You write laws against me and my group, he writes laws against you and your group & so it goes. Once bias has been legally recognised then we have set a sad precedent & we don't know where it will lead.
The sad truth is if the law doesn't protect everyone equally then eventually it will protect no one at all. Just a thought.

The case against gay marriage from the perspective of liberalism by Prof. Susan Shell.

http://www.thepublicinterest.com/archives/2004summer/article1.html

"All notions of marriage derive and build on the fact of biological generation."

"Like death, generation defines our human nature.If it is discriminatory to deny gay couples the right to 'marry', is it not equally unfair to deny living individuals the right to attend their own 'funerals'?"

"The requirement that homosexual attachments be publicly recognized as no different from, and equally necessary to society as, heterosexual attachments is a fundamentally illiberal demand. Gay relations bear a less direct relation to the generative act in its full psychological and cultural complexity than relations between heterosexual partners."

For perspectives greater than liberalism:

‘Why even the Pope has to whisper’
www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA10Ak01.html

"Europe is infected by a strange lack of desire for the future. Children, our future, are perceived as a threat to the present, as though they were taking something away from our lives. Children are seen - at least by some people - as a liability rather than as a source of hope. Here it is obligatory to compare today's situation with the decline of the Roman Empire." (Pope Benedict XVI)

‘Why Europe chooses extinction’ www.atimes.com/atimes/front_page/ED08Aa01.html

How does an open and tolerant civilization tolerate people and ideas that will destroy an open and tolerant civilization?
‘Death by Secularism’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GH02Aa01.html

Circulating fake money cheats those who receive it and can damage the economy. In the same way giving same-sex couples and temporary relationships the same status as marriage devalues the currency of marriage. Only 0.2% of all couples are homosexual.
http://www.christian.org.uk/html-publications/counterfeitmarriage.htm

Comedienne Julia Gorin on the stupidity of liberal ‘tolerance’.
www.jewishworldreview.com/julia/gorin120105.php3

http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/marco.html see here from some of the radical political goals of gay activists.

The conclusion therefore is that gays and misguided secularists don’t realise that they’re trying to extract the last drops of moral capital from the west’s Christian heritage. They don’t know it because “History anaesthetizes those it is about to discard” “Rome, Czar, Louis XIV etc. (then Europe, Australia . . )

Not THE conclusion, Martin. YOUR conclusion, based on selected opinions. And those of us who don't agree with you are "misguided secularists", are we? I suppose that using selected websites makes a change from using selected Biblical verses, but the principle is the same.

I'm hetero. I married many years ago in a church ceremony. We tried to make a go of it, but our marriage didn't work out for either of us. So we eventually got divorced under Australia's one year apart option. Our divorce did not devalue or undermine anyone else's marriage.

After having a few lady friends, I met a divorced lady with whom I spent 22 wonderful years, which sadly ended when I lost her. We didn't get married, it was not necessary. Again, our relationship didn't adversely affect anyone else.

I've been lucky enough to meet another delightful divorced lady and we're very good for one another. The probability is that we will not see any need to get married. Our business and no-one else's.

I have gay friends, some of whom are in stable, long-term relationships. I think that at least some of them may like the opportunity to formalise their relationships. Some may like a religious blessing as part of that formalisation. No other human being, Australian or otherwise, would be adversely affected by such a ceremony or religious blessing, unless he/she chose to be offended at the mere thought that it was happening.

I can't be bothered with such busybodies. Quite simply they should just learn to live and let live. It's just unfortunate that so many Australian politicians, led by the nose by selfish religious extremists, haven't got what it takes to tell the busybodies to mind their own business.

Rex there are no arguments in your post.

You claim selectivity but do you offer any reply to the content of the links? Any counter arguments? Your anectodes are interesting but I'm not sure how you think divorce is trivial and has no public affects. I don't mean to tell you marriage is easy but the post was about homosexual marriage. Did you read the links?

I'd much rather be proved wrong than be called names, 'busybody' just won't cut it in terms of public debate. We are dealing with very important issues - did you not get the sense of that in anything that has been posted?

If someone quotes the Bible selectively ("Even the Devil can quote Scripture for his own purpose") then make sure you don't let them get away with it. But does that mean the most widely read book ever, revered as the Word of God recorded by his children, is of no value? If you mean belief does not assure righteousness. Agreed. "you believe in God. So what! The demons believe in God (and tremble) James 2:19. But how else am I to argue if I don't choose something to argue with? Remember selectivity cuts both ways, the same charge could be levelled at you, best stick to the content. In other words, the content I select is either true or false. Stick to that.

Rex you need to present good arguments. Make sure you do a google search 'fallacial arguments' get the list and then avoid all of these. Look forward to your contribution.

Godbless.
P.s. (I honestly don't mean to be patronising) Australia needs its citizens informed. I genuinely hope you can get around the arguments enough to persuade me.

Sincerely M.I.W

Martin Ibn Warriq, “ Rex, there are no arguments in your post.” thats because Rex was not trying to argue. He was putting forward a very good expression of how the vast majority of intelligent people feel regarding this subject and relationships in general.

The only objection that people have to the subject of homosexual rights, is child adoption and parenting. This purely boils down to most feeling, that a balanced upbringing requires both a male and female biological parent who is a part of the child's life. Other than that, its their business.

We fully understand how inadequate the religious blanks are when it comes to understanding life, we see that in every aspect of your lives. Sadly you persist in constantly repeating tired old religious rhetoric, which is total fantasy.

You that trembles in fear, of being wrong. Whilst real people are willing to sit down and work out a responsible and acceptable outcome, for these sort of requests by minorities within society.

Unlike religious societies that are mono cultures, secular societies cater for everyone. Even the brain dead religious are catered for, under sufferance.

The problems secular societies face, is how much acceptance they give minorities without causing adverse conditions. Religious societies suppress and condemn those minorities that don't fit into their bigoted mind set. We understand your fear of difference, just won't accept it.

Our heritage is not christian, but developed by people transported here by religiously controlled countries, against their will. Sadly after more than 100 hundred years of a decent, growing more tolerant culture, we are faced with the religious from all sides, trying to force us back to their despotic ways.

To Mr Bosk.

You are using the concept of universal equality as a moral absolute. Could I advise you against using any argument based upon moral absolutes because it makes you easy meat. Moral values conflict, and moral values change with the times. The best way to shred the argument of a person who insists upon basing their arguments upon moral absolutes, is to think up a scenario which takes that moral absolute to it’s most ridiculous length, in order to make a mockery of it. That is usually very easy to do.

Inequality already exists within all Western societies and for reasons which may be good or bad. The primary role of governments is to create laws which promote the peaceful co existence and continued prosperity of their nations people. It is not to promote equality or defend individual rights to the point where it endangers social cohesion. Good governments weigh the effects of granting individual rights against the effects upon their society as a whole.

Aboriginal descended people have many more “rights” than other Australians descended people, but few people begrudge them that privilege. Insurance actuaries openly discriminate against young people when assessing motor vehicle insurance, and they also discriminate by postal address. Most people would agree that this “inequality” makes sense also. The system of “licensing” is also a form of inequality and discrimination, which prevents unqualified or untrustworthy people from engaging in defined social activities. Religious orders are also usually exempt from any legislation demanding equality for all.

So, Mr Bosk, it appears that your argument that maintaining equality is essential, does not bear examination.

Hi neckie
Where do I start with your post? Well let's start at the beginning. Quote "You are using the concept of universal equality as a moral absolute" Wrong! Legal precepts have NOTHING to do with morality. They are the aim or goal if you like that law strives towards.

Example: Let us suppose that the vast majority of heterosexuals are debased morally. As far as the principle of "equality before the law" their lack of morality would be irrelevant. Everyone must be treated equally before the law OR it endangers everyone because of the precedent that has been set.

2)Your second argument seems to suggest that since we've allowed discrimination before we can do it now. Why? Our anglo-saxon ancestors once burned witches - should we do that now? How about burning catholics & protestants? Australia used to be used as a dumping ground for Irish political prisoners. Should we start that again?
Really! All you've done is prove my point. Once a precedent of bias has been established in the law there are always people who seek to extend it because there are people they don't like that aren't included but are equally hateworthy, at least in their eyes.

If I were a member of a minority - a fundamentalist christian for instance - I would feel far more threatened by such precedents than I would by homosexuals gaining equal standing under the law. Why? Because I might be next! Sorry to demolish your arguments like this. Better luck next time neckie. :)

Alchemist. No. There are lots more objections to gay marriage than the ones you mention, didn’t you read the links? No it doesn’t boil down to one opinion alchemist, did you bother to read the professor's article?

Where do you think the idea of the secular comes from?

Jesus answered, "My Kingdom is not of this world. If my Kingdom were of this world, then my servants would fight, that I wouldn't be delivered to the Jews. But now my Kingdom is not from here."
John 18:36.

The separation of the earthly and the spiritual by the Holy Roman Church compared with the political goals of Islam is explained in an article by ‘Spengler’. It’s a good read. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA10Ak01.html

In it he writes: Pope Gelasius I (492-496) taught that "because of human weakness (pride!), they have separated the two offices" of king and priest.

Insofar as any country is secular is because the Catholic Church was true to Christ’s teaching, and produced citizens who understood and could reason from this. The Church has, at times in the past, foolishly tried to establish a theocracy of a kind but nothing like Islam, read Spengler and get the gist.

What Christians emphasise is that honest dialogue has to occur if secularism is to survive which is in both our interests. But the idea of a purely secular civilization is a contradiction. It requires the sacred to define itself against. Yet we throw out the sacred at the first opportunity at the cost of so much nihilism and depression and other societal ills.

As for your last paragraph Alchemist. I’d be interested to see you make a case for Australia developing in isolation from Christianity, besides the fact that secularism itself is dependent for its proper understanding on Jesus and Christianity.

Remember even your screen name is meaningless without reference to Christianity.

Redneck writes..
"Senator Greig admits that neither side of Parliament is keen on giving gay marriages the green light. The reason why, of course, is that it would be electoral suicide for any party which openly supported it. Mr Greig”s fanciful claim that the majority of Australians support gay marriages is obviously not a view held by either the Coalition or Labor. Most people grudging conceded that homosexuality should be decriminalised, but that did not bestow respectability on the practice"

In fact, this has been proved NOT to be the case in the ACT. At our last local government elections, the ACT Labor party made it clear that they would introduce rights for same-sex couples, including some kind of relationship scheme. It was a major part of their election platform.

That party won a majority government...the very first time that any political party has won a majority government since self-government was introduced in the late 80's.

The people of Canberra have shown that they do not feel "distaste or hilarity" or have "low regard" for homosexuality. Indeed, they have shown that they support unions for same-sex couples.

Martin Ibn Warriq, Secularism goes back to at least the Hittites, some time around 2000 BC. When they conquered they accepted the local religious beliefs into their empire, unless they caused social problems, then they removed them. They removed most of the violent laws of the Hebrews as well. They are mentioned quite a bit in the old Hebrew bible. They were Germanic.

Alchemy goes back a long way and was present in many civilisations, The Egyptian adept king "Hermes Trismegistus" who lived about 1900 B.C. Is a recorded alchemist. Alchemy was also present in china round 650 AD as recorded by Taoist's. In India, Hindu alchemists were recorded about 2500 BC, just a tad before your pope who had a few women in those days.

As John was written sometime in the 2nd century, by scribes and was probably dictated by a woman writing a letter to others describing her life with Jesus and what he talked about. Whilst anointing all around with cannabis laced oil. Plus it didn't receive the name John until about 650 AD, I would learn the actual lineal Greek wording and a bit of history, before relying on and quoting a fallacy.

Basically its your fear that puts you against those who are different in their life expressions. The religious are so insecure and fearful, that they must destroy everything so that their iluusions won't be pointed out to them.

There can never be equality, only difference. It is equality of opportunity that works. Religion seeks to equalise us into enslaved clones of their example. Thats why they object to people with different sexual orientation, difference frightens them.

Alchemist, in what way do our political forms follow the Hittitean! What country do you think you live in?

You’re right alchemy does have pre-Christian origins but if you want to really understand what your screen name means read about the goals and thinking of the Mediaeval alchemists – this is the point.

John’s Gospel written in 650AD? Are you deliberately writing nonsense or did that just come from the top of your head? Scholars who don’t have a bone of faith in their body date John between 60-110 A.D. It was written by Jesus’ best friend. The closest John could do justice to Jesus was with the poetry he uses in this last of four biographies. You’ll get some dispute about the authorship from some scholars but I reckon they’re knuckle heads.

The tiny gay minority has no right weakening the meaning of marriage for everyone. An argument I introduced via an external link was that this is this is a kind of totalitarian aim, that they're not thinking of what further damage it will do to society. Prof Shell argued this point. You don't add to the discussion, your refuge is ad hominem argument.

Who is frightened of difference? It's gays who want to be seen to be like everyone else, but they’re not, they are different. It is they who should be happy with their difference and not seek the sanctions and assistance that rightly belong to those who wish to bring children into the world (all things being equal). Spengler shows us the demographic horror facing the west.

Apart from bared faced lies, your posts' distinguishing feature is rudeness and slander. You see history in black and white, with no nuance – the hallmark of an intellectual fraud. Ordinarily I would laugh at such hysterical rants, but because I'm new I gave you the benefit of the doubt. One or two might get their kicks out your silly posts but most would see you simply as narrow and boorish.

Martin
Just a few points.
1) Marriage has NOTHING to do with having & raising children. Need I point out that men & women need hardly be married to have & raise kids. Well why does every society possess a rite of marriage you ask? The answer is quite simple. Marriage is necessary to secure inheritance rights & confirm alliances. In other words it was about property & power. Hence the reason why, until fairly recently in the world's history arranged marriages were the norm. The bride & groom rarely saw each other until the wedding day. There was no need for that if the whole point of marriage was property & power.

2) you assert that gays being married would inevitably weaken marriage for everyone. If this is inevitable why hasn't it happened in countries where gay marriages are legal such as Spain?
In fact can you provide me with proof, not just an argument but proof, that allowing gay marriages would INEVITABLY lead to a lessening of the bonds of marriage for all heterosexual couples? After all we are talking about writing discrimination into the law. That is an awful risk to take for the whole of society. For us to consider such a risk worthwhile you would have to prove that gay marriages would INEVITABLY, not just possibly, lead to a breakdown of marriage.
Finally would such a breakdown of marriage lead to a divorce rate of over 50% of marriages? Then I would argue that it's too late. It's already happening. So we might as well allow gay marriages.
If you are arguing that something even more dire would occure then give me examples from history where this has occured. Otherwise you would have to admit, if you are honest, that your ideas are based on nothing more than speculation.

Dear sad Martin Ibn Warriq, you wrote,”Where do you think the idea of the secular comes from?” My example, Hittites. How sad, changing what people say, in your poor attempt to shore up your delusions

I understand my screen name, it relates to world realities, not christian fallacies. Alchemy does not relate to anything religious, but relates to the investigation of the changing universe, from all aspects. Not your narrow viewpoint

Martin, the first lesson here, is to learn to read peoples posts, a failing with most of the religious that bumble along here. I wrote, “As John was written sometime in the 2nd century,” Who's lying.

Jesus's best friend, as written in trhe original Greek text, and the gnostic texts, was Mary, who was his greatest love along side Sarah. John was a jew, and like most of that era, was virtually illiterate. The text of those letters, was written in Greek, not hebrew and contains many notations on the scribes interpretations of their writings. Thats where you get the true meaning, not from a fictional bible.

As you appear to know nothing of theological history, I won't burden you with it, this is a thread about same sex unions. But I can understand your attempt at promoting delusion, to cover your fear of reality.

Homosexuals are like everyone else, Bosk points this out very well.

Your quote “The tiny gay minority has no right weakening the meaning of marriage for everyone” I would look at the sexual practises of the representatives of religion, to see who has had the biggest effect on weakening marriage and promoting sexual debauchery.

What right does the tiny minority religious have in weakening our secular society to force its violent beliefs upon us, when only 9% of Australia's population set foot in a place of worship. That does include all religions.

Its your minority thats the problem.

“the hallmark of an intellectual fraud.” are those that change what people say and try to change historical fact, not those that have spent many years studying theological history, up close.

To Mr Bosk.

I agree that equality is a very important guiding principle in law. But equality is not, never has been, nor ever will be, the over riding consideration of legislators when they are considering whether laws should be enacted or repealed.

Inequality is a fact of life within the law today, usually with very good reason. No violent criminal is ever going to get anywhere by claiming that convicted armed robbers have a right to own a firearm, simply on the basis of “equality.” Neither is any Feminist going to get anywhere by demanding legal sanction against the sexist inequality which exists within either the hierarchy of the Catholic Church and the Islamic faith. Your conviction that legal authority is valid only if it recognises the concept of absolute legal equality is self evidently wrong.

And where you got the notion that law has nothing to do with morality, is anybodies guess. But once again, you are clearly wrong. The laws of every society are based upon the prevailing moralities of the dominant culture. Culture is the primary factor in understanding human behaviour, and it is the cultural values of every society that determine its particular moral code. What is considered legal or illegal behaviour within every society is a product of its culturally derived moral values.

Martin Ibn Warriq,

I like to welcome you to this forum. I have enjoyed your comments so far.

I wouldn’t worry about dear old Al - he, she or it (no one really knows) lives in a world of his making. He uses words like fantasy, delusion, fear, insecurity, illusion... quite a lot. And that’s when he/she/it is in a good mood. Actually I’m surprised they are allowed laptops over there now…

He, she or it has never added anything worth debating, and gets high on infuriating others by spraying his/hers/its intellectual venom on anyone and everyone.

As a special treat, after he/she/it catches a fish or two, he/she/it would delight in skinning a Christian or two for desert.

P.S. he/she/it still doesn’t know about the other major religion so in the meantime he/she/it has got us to amuse him/her/itself with.

I think he/she/it could make millions writing the sequel to The Davinci Code. There is definitely a huge market for that sort of historically researched junk.

So let’s continue to pray for such people and for ourselves in dealing with them that we remain honest, humble and alert.

. If you believe Australia is secular because of the Hittite ppl after the proof I gave there is nothing I can do to gainsay you. I’ve told you its origins in our society, its uncontroversial.

. ‘World realities’ ? Being vague isn’t helping. “Alchemy, said Jung, stands in a compensatory relationship to mainstream Christianity”. http://www.gnosis.org/jung_alchemy.htm To understand Alchemy you have to understand Jung. I just assumed you already knew this.

There’s no good reason to believe John was written after 70 A.D. I choose Christian conservationist scholars. I thought you put forward 650 AD as the date of authorship apologies. But title additions and cannabis oil? I think you need to stay off the oil yourself Al.

If you source Gnostic sources rather than canonical ones that is going against all rules of historical scholarship. Why are the four canonical? Because the Gnostic ones were rejected by those who knew they were tosh. If the canonical gospels were rubbish they wouldn’t have lasted two seconds. They were accepted by the community, many who had known Jesus were still alive and could confirm or refute the text.

Some clergy have behaved wickedly, a much higher level of moral behaviour is rightly expected of them. It is far rarer than in regular society. This has to be held against the overwhelming majority of men and women who have given up much to serve the community. You prefer to smear and slander.

Secularism needs no help its destroying itself http://www.newcriterion.com/archives/24/01/its-the-demography/
http://www.newcriterion.com/archives/24/01/after-the-suicide/

I have some serious reservations about your theological training Al.

Martin.

I have had a few little scraps with The Alchemist (Who really is a good person) but reading your crud recently makes me wonder about your state of mental health.

This thread is about homosexuals having the right to legitamise their relationship. I right I agree with.

Your links to alarmist bile make me sick. You and your intellectual colleagues are the problem not the solution.

If you beleive that Islam is the great evil in this world, as you obviously do. I would reply that religion is the great evil in this world.

We do not need another Google God botherer, we have enough already, but at least they have a sense of humour.

I look forward to you running out of steam with your fallacious arguements.

Martin, as Steve says, this thread is about same sex unions, not about religion For your answers, read my previous comments, I'm not going to waste time repeating myself, unlike you lot. Regarding Jung, you need to learn to read, even your own link is at odds with what you say.

Here is a link for you to my comments, pull them apart all you like. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=19083

Coach, as usual nothing to say. Where you got the idea I know nothing about islam, shows how inadequate you are. I don't say much about it, because I haven't deeply studied it., I have read it a few times and have 4 different copies, as well as 15 different versions of the bible dating back to the 15th century, from different sects.

So have a go at me all you like, I enjoy it. Makes my day, as you fall over each other to see who can become the most foolish and historically inadequate..

As for same sex relationships, I 'm all for them, as long as they keep to themselves and don't involve children. I don't believe anyone other than a biological male and female parent can bring up a child in a mentally stable manner, not even single women or men or two of the same sex. Poor kids, so confused about life. Mind you there are exceptions.

Steve, drop me a note, I was going to reply to you, but lost your address.

Martin Ibn Warriq wrote

"The tiny gay minority has no right weakening the meaning of marriage for everyone. An argument I introduced via an external link was that this is this is a kind of totalitarian aim, that they're not thinking of what further damage it will do to society. Prof Shell argued this point. You don't add to the discussion, your refuge is ad hominem argument."

It isn't the tiny gay minority that has weakened the meaning of marriage, it is the vast heterosexual majrity that has weakend marriage, or haven't you noticed the divorce statistics?

It used to be that sex was, by and large, 'reserved' for married couples. It was one reason for getting married. Now that has gone. Children used to be mainly born and raised in marriage - well, I guess that has gone too.

Married used to be for life - hahahahaha

Don't blame the gays for weakening marriage, as an institution it isn't weakened, it is virtually dead, just a pale shadow of what it used to be.

I am not in favour of gay marriage, I just cannot see any reason to object to it.

I am in favour of strengthening marriage, maybe two years separation should be required (as in NZ) for divorce instead of one. Perhaps raise the minimum marital age to 21.

Perhaps we should try to shut down the uselessand wasteful 'wedding industry' - and the monied spent on useless, and untimately meaningless ceremonies, due to the high rate of divorce, should be channelled into areas that may keep people together for real, instead of in their dreams.

Hi neckie
In your last post you stated that morality was the basis for law. Too simplistic I'm afraid. Our laws are based on ancient Roman law, custom & tradition, prejudice, ignorance, an appeal to popular opinion & yes morality as well. As you can well imagine this results in a mishmash. Many of our laws, in some cases, contradict each other. How do we decide between them? Legal precepts.
You come close to this yourself when you wrote "I agree that equality is a very important guiding principle in law. But equality is not, never has been, nor ever will be, the over riding consideration of legislators when they are considering whether laws should be enacted or repealed." Quite correct. The most important legal precept, the one on which ALL laws MUST be based is JUSTICE. This is THE most important guiding principle.
But how do we define justice? Simple! Justice is defined by the Formal Principle of Justice which is "similar cases must be treated similarly." Note: Not the "same" but "similar" cases.
Now let's apply it. Two couples want to get married. Both couples consist of people of legal age, able to give legal consent & consist solely of humans. In other words they are similar. One couple is heterosexual & one couple homosexual. Sounds like the Formal Principle of Justice should apply here. After all both cases ARE similar [not the same but similar]. Now since they are similar & since the Formal Principle of Justice states that "similar cases MUST be treated similarly" it follows that both couples MUST be treated in a similar fashion. Either allow both to marry or forbid both.
Game, set & match. Hope I've given you something to think on. Adieu

Australian Law is based upon the British legal system which was in itself based primarily upon the moral values upheld and promoted by the Christian Church. Historically, homosexuality was considered deviant and unacceptable behaviour because it was so ordained by the Christian God. But we live in a secular age where many of us do not seriously consider that unless we obey a God’s directives, he will punish our society with plague, pestilence, flood, drought or disease. Our laws have evolved to the point where homosexuals now receive a degree of tolerance. But that does not suggest social approval of their activities.

The over riding factor in law today is not Justice, the law today is primarily concerned with finding creative ways for lawyers to generate work for other lawyers. The concept of “Justice” went out of the window when we abolished the death penalty.

Your little example of “Justice” being the ability for “two people” of the same sex to get married falls down on one crucial point. Most people do not consider the union of two people of the same sex to be “marriage.” But because we live in a tolerant society, and because politicians are frightened of the disciplined homosexual vote, Australian society now concedes many of the privileges associated with marriage may now be enjoyed by homosexuals.

Now, one might consider that homosexuals would be happy with how their cause has progressed, but of course they are not. Their next target is total equality and respectability. But here they have a problem. So far, their gains have been easy because the opposition to their lifestyle has mainly come from religious moral values whose traditional power base is on the wane. Opposition to homosexuals today is now ironically being led by secular forces who once may even have fought for homosexual rights. These anti homosexual forces , while still conceding that past homosexual gains are OK, still believe in family values. Homosexuals are now seen to be attacking those family values by their insistence upon marriage equity.

For an idea of how the abuse of traditional sexual morality has unanticipated effects this short article is from the Herald Sun and the author is very concerned about how young people are missing out.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,17232182%255E5001167,00.html

So you see, this is only argument by analogy and its persuasiveness depends of course on how much you're inclined to the point of view to begin with. All I ask is a little doubt from those whose reasoning to them seems unassailable.

Instead of a spirit of entitlement, please gay activists please, see what service you will be doing by limiting your demands. You must know our society has gone a little mad. Don't exploit it. Yes I'm demanding more from you than from heterosexuals.

Tragedies are tragedies precisely because the protagonist has no choice but to walk into a trap that he cannot possibly anticipate. It is this that overturning five thousand years of accumulated wisdom concerning human partnerships is destined to lead to. Arguments from progress from slavery, from prohibitions on interracial marriage are not valid and have been dealt with in added links.

I appeal to homosexual people who do not share the gay activist agenda to speak up for the sake of us all.

Marriage has been denigrated for too long and we all suffer. Leave it in peace.

And heterosexuals who are mostly responsible for its breakdown, please stop.

In regard to marriage, I wonder if Martin considers me to be one of those "heterosexuals who are mostly responsible for its breakdown". Married in church, later divorced [a blessing for both of us]. A number of lady friends. Then a 22 year de facto relationship with a wonderful [divorced] lady, who I sadly lost four years ago. And now a two year loving relationship with another divorced lady, which is probably unlikely to be formalised by marriage. Think what you want, Martin or others, but don't you dare judge me or the ladies in my life. Nor my many good friends who are also in de facto relationships.

As I took Redneck to suggest, we don't have a justice system, we have a legal system. But I don't consider this anything to be proud of, nor to be accepting and complacent about.

I am very active socially and dance Ballroom and Latin 4 or 5 times a week. Ballroom dancing, particularly in my age group, is a fairly conservative sort of pastime. I am also active in business and move in fairly conservative business circles. Yet when the subject of gay people comes up, I generally find that most of my friends and associates are neither judgemental nor amused, in an unpleasant kind of way, about homosexuality.

Homosexuals used to be executed in many societies. Maybe they still are in some. I remember in England in the 1940s and 1950s, homosexual men in positions of influence defected to other [hostile] countries rather than be publicly outed. Others went to jail for allegedly leading astray other adult consenting men. Our legal system may still be defective, but we've come a long way since then.

So you could say that gay people are winning when it comes to gaining general acceptance. They certainly have far more understanding within the community. But why stop when you are winning? It makes good sense to push forward towards your goals.

If various other civil rights movements had been prepared to settle for an unjust compromise, then perhaps none of us would have achieved equality.

Neckie
You've been switching the goal posts once again. First I asserted that to deny marriage to homosexuals was to violate a legal precept - equality before the law. You claimed that this was a moral standpoint. When I proved it wasn't you shifted the goal posts & argued that it wasn't the most important legal precept. When I proved that the most important legal precept - justice - also supported the marriage of homosexuals you changed the goal posts once again & argued that law [no longer legal precepts] were based on morality & morality was against homosexual marriage.

3 points neckie.

1) Common law is to some degree based on Roman law. To quote the wikipedia "Even the English and North American Common law owes some debt to Roman law although Roman law exercised much less influence on the English legal system than on the legal systems of the continent." Since Our system is NOT based solely on morality but on roman law & precedent, then morality has NO say on whether homosexual marriage becomes legalised.

2) Let's say, for argument's sake, that all common law is based on public morality. So what? Public morality is NOT monolithic & unchanging. What was unthinkable 100 years ago is commonplace now. In other words public morality is constantly changing. Therefore if the law is based on public morality it too must constantly change. Now there is a growing amount of evidence for the public acceptance of homosexuals by the majority of Australians. It follows from this that if law is based on public morality & public morality is slowly accepting the idea of homosexuals getting married then the law should be changed to suit.

3) By accepting that the Formal Principle of Justice applies to homosexual marriage you are admitting that giving homosexuals the right to be married is merely an act of justice. Thank you

Conclusion: Law is not based on public morality but even if it were then it can be argued that since public morality and justice support homosexual marriage then the law must be changed.

To Mr Bosk.

I have refuted your assertion that equality before the law is uppermost in Australian law and I have given examples to illustrate that point. If you wish to continue submitting an argument that is plainly invalid then please go right ahead.

I did not claim that inequality before the law was a moral standpoint. I simply pointed out that the laws of every society are based upon the prevailing cultural moral values of that society. I would have thought that this was obvious.

“Justice” is a relative term (like near or far) and it means different things to different people. I personally do not believe that our laws are just unless it puts to death those convicted of the most heinous and cruel crimes. You would probably disagree with my concept of “Justice”, as I oppose your concept of “Justice.”

Now to your three points.

1. Our laws may reflect the Roman judicial system in its formal structure, in that we use “magistrates” in the same way that the Romans used “Preators”, “lawyers” which the Romans called “advocates” (this term is still used to some extent today), formal judicial hearings, and rights of appeal. But Roman law was based upon the prevailing moral code of the Romans at the time.

2. You are correct when you state that moral values, and therefore the laws which support them, change with the times. You should be arguing why we should continue to change our moral code in respect to homosexuals instead of simply demanding that we must change our laws to conform to your particular concept of “justice.”

3. I did not say anything of the sort. I pointed out that most people do not consider a partnership of two men to be marriage, although our society may recognise that homosexual have a valid case in terms of inheritance rights and other issues. But if some homosexuals continue to claim that a homosexual union is “marriage”, they will be alienating those who are up to now have supported homosexual rights.

Neckie
Quote "I have refuted your assertion that equality before the law is uppermost in Australian law..." I said it was important, NOT the most important.

Quote "I did not claim that inequality before the law was a moral standpoint." This is a LIE neckie. Quote "You are using the concept of universal equality as a MORAL absolute."

Quote You would probably disagree with my concept of “Justice”, as I oppose your concept of “Justice.” The Formal Principle of Justice is accepted by every legal system in western Europe as well as the UK, USA, Canada & AUSTRALIA to name just a few. Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant.

One thing you might like to consider. If law is merely legislated morality then what is morality's stance on tort law? Property rights as well as a few thousand other laws? Morality has precious little to say about any of them.

Now your weird attempts at response.

1) Quote "Roman law was based upon the prevailing moral code of the Romans at the time." Really? Then we don't have a problem since the Romans didn't have ANY problems with homosexuality.

2) "You are correct when you state that moral values, and therefore the laws which support them, change with the times. You should be arguing why we should continue to change our moral code in respect to homosexuals..." Irrelevant. The moral code is changing whether you wish it to or not neckie. your biases are going the way of the dodo. And since, according to you, the law is based on morality then the law MUST change to be in accord with those changes.

3) "I pointed out that most people do not consider a partnership of two men to be marriage,..." your evidence for this is?
If most people are against marriage then why do most polls show the majority have no trouble with it?

Why has one territory in Australia had a government elected which had the legalisation of homosexual marriages as part of its platform? Reality is against you neckie. You've lost neckie. Bye

Neckie
Just a few more rebuttals:
What I actually said Quote "LEGAL PRECEPTS have NOTHING to do with morality."

What you misinterpreted me as saying Quote "And where you got the notion that LAW has nothing to do with morality, is anybodies guess."

Notice I was discussing LEGAL PRECEPTS [they are the guiding principles of the law]. You on the other hand claimed I said the LAW has nothing to do with morality. Legal precepts are NOT the same as the law neckie.

In fact I have NEVER said that morality played no part in the formulation of the law Quote " Our laws are based on ancient Roman law, custom & tradition, prejudice, ignorance, an appeal to popular opinion & yes MORALITY as well."

Since you have told untruths, changed your argument without acknowledging it & have misinterpreted Me so consistently I think I will leave the thread here. bye neckie.

To Mr Bosk

From the very beginning of our exchange, you have based your argument upon the principle of equality in the law. I graciously pointed out to you that if you base your argument upon moral absolutes, then you will fail. When you could get nowhere refuting my logic on the subject of legal equality, you tried another moral absolute, that of “justice.” Once again, I can easily counter that concept.

One thing that I have learned from being on debate sites is that those people who base their arguments upon moral absolutes are easy meat. They are usually young people who are so used to being told what is right or what is wrong by their parents or their peers, that they have never thought out the subjects which they are so passionate about. They simply parrot the fashionable slogans that their peers inculcate into their heads without bothering to even try to understand their opponent’s point of view, or figure out their opponents underlying motivations. They also see little need to do any research other than listening to their friend’s hearsay.

They then find a debate site like this one. And, convinced that they are really smart and that their opponents are all dimwits, they launch into tirades of self righteous abuse as a substitute for reasoned logic. It is funny to see them get really angry and frustrated when they begin to realise that they are outclassed by people who have thought about a subject and who have done some research. Their usual response is to gather what is left of their dignity and march out of the arena, pausing only to turn and throw insults and claims of unfair treatment at their opponent, who is still waiting with his sword in his hand.

I won’t bother responding to your questions if you are running away.