The longer the campaign of fear and hatred eminating from christian groups such as the Australian christian lobby continues, the longer homophobic community attitudes will exist. Some christians need to take a good hard look at themselves. I don't remember anywhere in the Bible where it says it's ok to taunt and bash any member of society and yet here we see not just right wing christians, who laughingly condem Muslin regimes like the Taliban and yet who by their own bigoted actions are equally as bad, but our own Government leaders who preach tolerance on one hand and dole out hatred by the other simply to "protect" their sad little marriage act. I'd like to start a group myself where everyone is welcome to live as they like, provided their lifestyle causes no harm to anybody else, where no harm is caused to others by way of action or deed, where all life is sacred and where the perpetuation of wealth creation and greed has no place. Oh heck!! I forgot!! It already exists. It's called Budhism. The right wing christian churches could do with a few lessons in Budhism. It would most certainly magnify their distorted view of the Bible.

Despite Alistair Nicholson's angry talk of "oppression" and "apartheid", the simple fact is that the common understanding of marriage is of a permanent relationship between a man and a woman, and a relationship between two men or two women is something different. Coalition and Labor policy, not surprisingly, reflect this understanding.

George
Not all common beliefs are good beliefs. Consider this. If it was a common belief that all Christians should be lined up against the wall & shot would you support it? Of course you wouldn't! You would argue that such a belief was unreasonable & unjust. Likewise discrimination against a group of people because of the way they were born is unjust & unreasonable & MUST be opposed.

I popose a NEW definition of marriage. A union between two loving adult individuals of sound mind. How's that?

By the way the recent actions in the ACT were to provide homosexuals with a civil union that would be the equivalent of marriage but not BE marriage. BIG difference.

That we even discuss same-sex marriage is alarming. As is Judge Nicholson’s use of the word “respect” for homosexual “couples”.

Forget the law and religion. Let’s get back to what is natural and what is perversion. Sexual union with a member of the opposite sex is natural. Sexual union with a person of the same sex is perversion; you don’t have to be a religionist or a lawyer to know that.

So some people enjoy homosexual relationships. Fine, if they keep it to themselves; it really doesn’t affect anyone else. But, to attempt to legitimise homosexuality and legalise unions between people practising it is beyond the pale.

Pathetically, for a man of Nicholson’s standing and ability, he has to resort to suggesting that Australia should legislate for same-sex union because some other countries do. He also passes judgement on Australian law on the matter as “contrary to principles of humanity and decency”.

He might be trying to bluff people into accepting that this is true because of his legal knowledge, but his opinion is no more objective or right than that of people who disagree with his views on human rights and/or those who would vigorously question his use of the word “decency” in connection with homosexual practices, and who simply find in impossible to offer the respect he apparently feels.

The suggestion that a homosexual relationship is equal to a heterosexual relationship, and the belief that people who disagree with Nicholson are either religious or “confused” is the final straw, and is insulting.

When a person like Alastair Nicholson feels it is right to put forward views such as has here, humanity is well and truly on the skids.

I think it is in the nature of humans to resist and repress the abnormal in our society. By nature, in order to perpetuate our species, we are attracted to the opposite sex. Most of us therefore view same sex relationships, like pedophilia, as unnatural and repugnant. This rejection does not stem necessarily from Christianity, which actually teaches tolerance and love, but is widespread in non-Christian societies, like China and Japan. Hostility to homosexuality is built into our nature, just as it is built into our nature to repress natural feelings of hostility. No laws will change this. Perhaps homosexuals should consider psychiatric help for their abnormality rather than trying to force the community to accept it. I particularly dislike how some people use so called progressive European countries as some sort of moral benchmark. We should never emulate these countries, but make our own decisions on what we think is best for our society.

I am all for the recognising the same sex relationship, but not as a marriage, define it as something else. And there is a very big difference between the two. One can physically create a life the other cannot. So they cannot be treated the same.

Also if we want same sex marriages defined in equal basis as traditional marriage then where does it stop? Poligamy? Why not if consenting adults want to be married to more than one person or have multiple partners is that not given same standard. To do otherwise would be commiting the same thing same sex couples say Hetros are doing.
Just a thought.

Justice Nicholson summed up his whole entire argument in just one sentence: "These opponents of recognition of same sex relationships frequently ignore the fact that these relationships often involve children, of whom one of the couple is often the biological mother or father".

The very notion of marriage is to provide stability and responsibilities for the raising on children. Mother Nature, in her wisdom, has made this possible be creating two groups within a species, namely male and female. In order to reproduce, you need (at least) one of each. As a clever primate, we have produced rules that accord a status to such mating pairs - it's called marriage.

The good judge says that because some previously hetrosexual individuals, have offspring, and for any number of reasons, are then attracted to a member of the same sex, the non-biological parent should be afforded that very special privilege of being considered married. His reason is to protect the child.

So in order to protect a limited number of children that find themselves in this situation, the whole group of self-indulgent primates should be accorded that very special privilege.

Sure - when two blokes can make a baby by themselves I'd be the first to agree.

Perhaps instead of trying to get same sex relationships recognised by the state, we should think about why we need to have any relationship state-sanctioned at all? Surely this is a private matter.

Well said “the big fish”, sadly both sides fail to see the implications of suppression and equal acceptance. Considering the majority of species including man, use polygamy as the standard form of relationship, the only reason its rejected is on religious grounds. Problem is, all religions have practised and accepted it during their histories.

It irks me when we get this constant bleating of how badly off certain sections of the community are. Yet if you look, you'll find a lot of same sex couples, are in the economic and sociological upper levels of society.

Lots of other species indulge in same sex, its also very prevalent in religious circles.

Homosexuality is not perversion, its different. Its perversion if its forced upon you. I think perversion relates much better to religion in its violent suppressive approach to everything it can't control.

If it turns you on, keep it to yourself and enjoy it. After all we all have our quirks, thats what makes us individuals and interesting, not morally straight jacketed religious boring clones. I'd love to have two ladies with me, it would reduce the work by 1/3 and increase leisure and pleasure time by 2/3rds, sounds good maths to me. Applications are now open. No muslims, christians or same sex need apply, I want enjoyment, not misery.

As the honorable author's been involved in stripping lots of parents of their biological and economic rights, causing huge psychological and economic damage to many people. I doubt his opinion should by held in any esteem other than contempt.

This "homophobia isn't due to Christianity" rubbish is...rubbish.

If homosexuality were truly unnatural, natural selection would have ensured it no longer existed. It's only the religious who have a context for defining it as unnatural.

If homosexuals wish for some type of ceremony , let them at it. but not marriage which is ordained for man and woman.
Ever since homosexuals 'came out' they have been pushing to be regarded as normal. That relationship is not normal but most people consider it to be their private business.
It should never ever be used to brainwash children into believing that it is normal. Children have enough to cope with in ordinary growing up, they do not need to have their brains frazzled with such relationships.

There is no question that a move toward equality for same sex couples is revolutionary and therefore intimidating to some. Yet a revolutionary move towards a position that improves the lives of a number of citizens, without injuring the rest can only be a positive one. And there doesn't seem to be any rational argument that injury will occur to the rest: indeed, other countries that have granted equality to same sex citizens have not crumbled, miraculously.

That some citizen's religious feelings are offended by such a move is undisputed. Nonetheless, we are living in a secular society and follow secular legislation. Therefore couples who are married do not have to divorce in a church to be divorced legally. Couples who marry and do not have children (through choice or biology) do not have their marriage status removed from them. Christians may indeed marry non-Christians. Women are not forced to marry against their will. People of different races may marry each other. All of these were once forbidden, before a revolutionary decision to allow them - as indeed same sex marriage will one day be.

Similarly our secular society allows people to wear eyeglasses, eat shellfish, wear clothing of mixed fabric, argue with their husbands - all of which are forbidden in the bible.

Suggesting that that same sex couples are unnatural is not logical. Homosexuality exists, in all cultures - thus it is a natural state. Not a choice, and not a lifestyle. People once suggested that the minority left-handers were unnatural, too - we don't legislate against them.

Same sex couples are in the minority. Does that really mean that the state should continue to deny them equal rights under the law? They are citizens too.

My next door neighbours are an old gay couple, they have lived together for 40 years. They are both in thier sixties, still work hard employing 15 people in their business.

They would like some formal recognition of the commitment they have for each other but cannot.

They are great members of my community and have been involved in community projects for decades.

They are not perverts or in need of psychiatric therapy. Just two guys who love each other.

"If homosexuals wish for some type of ceremony , let them at it. but not marriage which is ordained for man and woman."

Who ordained this. Surely not a loving God. Christian Lobby groups strike again, why can't they leave others in peace?

The sole attribution of “homophobia” to religion, and Christianity in particular, is nonsense. I previously remarked how disapproval of homosexuals prevails in non-Christian societies. It is natural for the norm to reject the abnormal. Homosexuality may occur in nature, but it is not common. Whether it is caused by genetic factors or environmental ones, as far as I am aware, remains undetermined. Logically, homosexuals are less likely to bear children, so if their trait were truly genetic, one would have expected it to have been extinguished long ago. It is possible that homosexuality serves some purpose for the survival of the human species. It is also part of our evolution that we are having this debate to decide whether or not we should recognize homosexual relationships. I believe it is better for our species not to encourage such abnormality. Nicholson’s article is filled with emotional clap-trap, typical of a lawyer, on why we should recognize these abnormal relationships that are not at all in the best interest of the wider community.

Rob
Quote "It is natural for the norm to reject the abnormal. "
What you seem to mean by the term "abnormal" here is something not practiced by the majority. Correct? So using the same principle you'd agree with laws discriminating against red headed people & left handed people? After all the majority don't write with their left hand or have red hair. Ah you say but that's different. Red heads & left handed people were born that way. So were homosexuals.

According to the latest research rams, lizards, dogs & chimpanzees have all been observed in homosexual acts. So it is found extensively in nature.

One last thing Rob. The christian testament defined god as LOVE. The opposite of love is hate. Just like the opposite of God is the Devil. By defending hatred against ANY group you are taking a stand opposite God, since God is love. Perhaps you better think carefully about this issue.

I cannot for the life of me understand the argument that allowing same sex marriages will somehow undermine marriage as an institution. I’m married, and I’m not at all worried that same sex marriage might undermine my marriage. I would embrace a change that would allow any couple who are devoted to each other to be able to share the same status and legal rights that I share with my husband.

And why is it always argued that it’s wrong because such a marriage can’t produce children? There are lots of marriages that don’t produce children, either because the partners choose not to, or because they can’t. (Incidentally, other relationships that are certainly wrong and unnatural can and do produce children, such as incest and rape, so the production of children is hardly a strong argument of what’s right and wrong.)

Same sex relationships and same sex parents are a reality in our society and have been for longer than most people are willing to admit. It’s not good enough for people to say it’s OK as long as it goes on in private – that in itself is a contradictory argument – either you think it’s wrong or you don’t. Homosexuality is not illegal, and between two consenting adults, does no harm. It’s simply not fair that some people who live their lives in a happy loving union, work, pay their taxes, raise their children, contribute to their community etc, are unable to access the same rights as others who live in exactly the same manner.

Thank you Steve.

The invisible victims of the Government’s discrimination are couples like your neighbours – you can find them all over Australia.

But it’s not just recognition that they miss out on. The Medicare Safety Net doesn’t apply to your neighbours as a couple, so they pay more for their health care than a comparable heterosexual de facto or married couple. If one of them becomes incapacitated and needs nursing care, the Commonwealth can (and does) insist that their home be sold to finance it, where a federal guarantee prevents this happening to a straight couple who’ve been married for ten minutes.

There’s a whole raft of discriminatory provisions which apply to them, each of which would be resolved if they could marry, or formalise their relationship in some way that was recognised by the Federal Government.

Because Leigh and others around here can’t lift their heads out of their pants, can’t get beyond the idea that marriage is all about heterosexual sex, this unfairness continues. Your neighbours have a loving relationship built on decades of sharing and support. The mean-spiritedness of those who deny them equality is breath-taking

it beats me Robbie G how recognising a fact of life - that is same sex relationships - will some how undermine anything - these relationships have exisited for years - without any damaging effects on society.

To aford those in them the same rights as other couplings seems only fair - recognising them as a legitimate union also seems only fair.

Among my group of friends some of the longest and monogamous relationships have been between same sex couples.

And I dont get Leighs point where he says homosexuality is fine - behind closed doors - but to argue not to legitamise homosexuality - which is little more than saying its ok to be gay - or to not legitamise the union of a gay couple makes no sense; if its ok in secret its OK everywhere

Equally his view that Nicholsons liberty to express the views he has and in the manner he has is some how a marker to the road to ruin is equally as odd - even though recent moves by the government on any number of fronts question the strength of our democracy - last time I looked we still where one - so the author can say what he likes - and we are the better for it.

What one set of people do with their own and others genitalia is pretty marginal to them as human beings - to consider same sex relationships as unnatural and repugnant as well is just dumb - as some on these pages do - you might think what they do is repugnant (so stop thinking about it!)

but the relationship in itself miight be ticketey boo for all concerned - loving sharing nuturing etc etc the sex bit like so much we worry about particularly here really is just another side show.

I've often wondered how those who focus on the procreation aspect of marriage deal with the marriage of people who as a couple are unable to have children. Should the law ban them from getting married as well? There are plenty of heterosexual couples where one of them is unable to be a biological parent and others who get married late enough in life that having more kids would not be in any bodies best interests. Maybe it's time for a new term to describe a relationship committment between consenting adults. Something without so much baggage.

I do wonder at Alistair Nicholson's ability to be so concerned about this issue in light of his apparent lack of concern for the harm done to so many children and their fathers by the family law system during and following his reign at the helm of the Family Law Court. To reword one of his comments from the article.

"This current state of the application of the law smacks of society punishing otherwise law-abiding members for a sexual characteristic (being male) that is, in and of itself, lawful."

I guess like all of us he is capable of seeing clearly in some areas and being blind in others. Certainly the harm done by the mess that is family law far outweighs the harm done by the inability of some to be married in the eys of the law.

R0bert

Being Devils advocate.

Survival of the strongest is been going on all the time. In nature kill or be killed. Human nature and different cultures have been killing each other for ever. So lets legalise euthanasia, murder, etc

That is using the "it's only natural" argument.

And again where do we stop
- Polygamy? (natural in some mammal species and human cultures)
- paedophiles? (Ditto above.)
- Beastiality?? Too far yes......or is it?

What is wrong in drawing a line somewhere? It must be drawn somewhere. So being devils advocate. Why should a minority be given any equivalence to marriage since it is fundamentally a different thing.

Like I said I am not worried giving it a name, eg civil union, but marriage? And there are differences so it cannot be the said to be the same.

The “thin end of the wedge” argument is always used against homosexuality. But there are clear differences between same sex relations and other sexual relations so often, yet incorrectly, linked to it.

The difference, and the place to draw the line, is at rational consent.

Two adults of the same sex can consent to having sex with each other. No child can rationally consent to sex, therefore pedophilia is illegal and immoral. The same with animals and bestiality.

Allowing people of the same sex to marry does not automatically open the floodgates to any sort of sexual activity. Any sexual activity that harms another or takes place without consent would remain illegal. Same sex marriage would merely allow the same types of relationships (ie consenting adults, whether opposite or same sex) the same rights under the law.

"Being Devils advocate."
Code for this is what I really mean but don't hold me to it.

"And again where do we stop
- Polygamy? (natural in some mammal species and human cultures)
- paedophiles? (Ditto above.)
- Beastiality?? Too far yes......or is it?"

Lets link homosexuality to lots of nasty stuff.

"Why should a minority be given any equivalence to marriage since it is fundamentally a different thing."

Is it really, I think not.

"Like I said I am not worried giving it a name",
Yes you are.

Devil's advocates make me vomit.

Big Fish, can you offer a rationale for any of those behaviours being as common or as harmless as homosexuality?

Polygamy: why not? There are no data indicating harmfulness, only hysterical moral outrage.

Paedophilia: desiring young children is always accompanied by a messy bag of other mental health disorders. It doesn't occur consensually and responsibly among adults, as homosexuality does. Also, attraction to post-pubescent girls isn't paedophilia, it's biological, even though we recognise that it's morally invalid and psychologically harmful.

Bestiality: same as child molestation. It doesn't occur in otherwise mentally healthy adults.

I could play devil's advocate by saying "AFL grand final held at night? Where do we stop? Mandatory rugby sessions for the elderly and disabled, with non-compliance punishable by flogging?" except that would be as ridiculous as the comparisons you cited above.

The available evidence suggests that single persons have higher rates of alcoholism, drug abuse, mental illness and mendicancy and dependency on the the social security system than couples (married or otherwise). The arguments for long-term heterosexual dyadic relationships must surely apply also to same-sex couples

The irony is that the values that JWH and his political kind say they support for heterosexual relationships, must also apply to same-sex couples. The stability of ALL relationshops is a public good, and especially for JWH, committed couples are less likely to impose financially on the Commonwealth and States, whatever their sexual orientation. From the point of the Commonwealth purse alone, putting aside all other "moral" and historical considerations, the encouragement and support of mutually-suporting relationships would seem to be "economically rational".

When I was a practising Catholic more years ago than I care to remember, we were taught that marriage was a "cure for concupiscence". In the age of AIDS, surely the encouragement of long-term commited relationships would be a priority for a government committed to reducing spending in the public (health)sector.

Steve, you're absolutely right about that fishy character, but I think she might have reversed the roles by casting out a line and hooking you: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4057#27332

I got married in my early 20's, hated his guts by the time I was 24 and divorced him at the grand old age of 25 then swore I would never again be so stupid. I am now 53 and still won't do it again, my kids are grown up and even my oldest grand-daughter is nearly 16. I am entirely independent to do what ever I want when I want to and I am too old and ratty to change now.

My very good friend Ian Hunter just became a member of the parliament of SA and his first act was to pay tribute to his "husband" Leith with whom he has been for 15 years.

Does my not wanting to be married and Ian wanting to be change anyone else's life? Who cares?

I think Howard is just throwing out diversions to avoid talking about real things like the catastrophic mess in Iraq, AWB, Haditha, rendition flights and a few others like people trafficking to Nauru.

Let's all pretend we are grown ups shall we and ask ourselves if gays and lesbians having a civil union will affect our lives and if not then leave it alone.

Arguments for why heterosexuality is "better":

a) it's natural. Yeah, well, so is cancer... just because something happens in nature doesn't make it good. (and obviously homosexuality happens in nature, too, so...)

b)but maybe what is meant by "natural" is rather: it is better for the evolution of the species... dear God, so is killing people with weack constitutions before they manage to reproduce, on this line of argument we will reintroduce Nazi experimental clinics for eugenics! and anyway, how do you know it is better for the evolution of the spieces?

c) it's normal. That simply means "more people do it" is that a good reason to think it is also "better"? don't we often admire people who are exceptional? who do things that the majority cannot manage? so why accept that simply because more people are heterosexual then it is also somehow a better form of sexuality? where's the logic here?

why don't you guys just come out and say "homosexuality is wrong because I don't like it", it makes just as much sense as the other arguments I mentioned and at least it's not hypocritical...

Schmuck, "homosexuality is wrong because I don't like it". Thats a bit simplistic, its deeper than that. Most objection is from paranoia and fear permeating the immoral moral ones. That equates to the depth of insecurity they have in their own understanding of sexuality and difference. Nothing is wrong if its acceptably agreeable to by the participants, what we imagine as agreeable doesn't relate to others reality.

All relationships should have the legal right be an equal part of society, they shouldn't be restricted or ostracised because of others fears. After all, theres a very thin line defining our sexual orientation and a lot of people fear feeling close to that line. If they understood themselves, they may find those fears are actually benefits, as they allow you to understand, yet not have to be agreeable.

In our world we have many variants in relationships, so all loving relationships should be hailed. Rather than trying to support failed moralistic concepts and deride successful different ones.

I know of relationships with two women and a man, who have become that way in their 50- 60's. Their intimacy if any, is irrelevant its what they get that counts. From what I've seen, they get companionship, love, a family, reduction in costs, security and a support base that normally diminishes in later life as biological family goes their own ways. Is that wrong.

Freedom is being able to express your feelings in a responsible way, no one has the right to determine someone else's responsibility. The results of their actions determines that.

Heterosexuality is the natural approach for procreation, it doesn't define love or its expression.

The issue of polygamy is an interesting one. About 12 months ago I phoned CentreLink to see how it handled the issue. I was told that to enter into a polygamous relationship was illegal in Australia. However, quadrigamists who are migrating to Australia may bring their wives. Only one wife may be claimed as a spouse. The other wives are paid the unmarried or deserted wives pension if they don’t work.

The generosity of the Australian taxpayer is unbounded.

SAGE
and the utter stupidity of our immigration deparmtment and government policy on this matter is further demonstrated by this rediculous and discriminatory policy.

Allowing polygamous wives entry to Australia who will in every respect BE wives and child bearing has more pox on it in terms of social and cultural impact than a house full of whores in an aids infested township.

How brilliant do you have to be, to work out that Muslims and anyone for that matter, can thus have 1 legal wife and 3 defacto.
Given that the child bearing rate of such a family is FOUR TIMES that of traditional monogomous families, does this not say something about the potential for uneven and discriminatory demographic change ?

On the issue of homosexual unions, it is as 'apartied' as discriminating against incestous, paedophilic and bestial relationships.

I care not one iota for the idea that 'they were born that way' or..'its their choice'.... because such logic can be equally (and IS being) used by such bodies as Nambla and anyone with a long standing sexual orientation towards children.

The trend, is always to LOWER the age of consent, thus blurring the line between 'paedophilia' and 'legal sexual activity'.

So, I call on all thinking Australians, to utterly reject the notion that Homosexual behavior has any place at all in our society other than to simply exist on an individual personal basis.

In fact.. when Jesus said 'Repent...for the kingdom of God is at hand' He would be meaning 'from' all that is unnacceptable to God.
It is abundantly clear, that homosexual behavior is TOTALLY unnacceptable to God, along with incest and bestiality.

What do we say to a Paedophile who claims "Look..I've been like this since puberty, I can't explain it.. I'm just like this, it was not my choice".. well we say KEEP YOUR PRIVATE PARTS INSIDE UR PANTS and touch any child at risk of us jailing you and throwing away the key !

Nambla speaks of 'positive adult/child sexual experiences' and quotes prominent people who had them as children.

I wonder if the snake is male or female.....

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1654386.htm

In keeping with the conservative view of love, any marriage may be considered null and void if:

Couple engage in anal sex.
Couple fail to produce offspring.
Both wear trousers.
Both wear dresses.

Also, in the event that a married couple do produce offspring and any of these offspring turn out to be homosexual or lesbian, the married couple shall be sterilised and, of course it follows that their marriage be considered null and void.

Men and women are hence forth banned from giving birth to gay people. That’ll wipe ‘em out.

;0

“Denying someone the right to be known as a committed partner to a relationship, simply on the basis of the gender of the partners, is no different to apartheid.”

Same old “whack job” hyperbole,

What I associate with “apartheid” is far different to the way the writer of the article has applied it here.

“Gays” are allowed to live where they want, associate with who they want and engage in relationships across racial lines, without fear of retribution by the state.

“Apartheid” would not allow them to live where they want, associate with who they wanted or engage in relationships across racial lines.

I have no problems, personally, with people in a particular relationship finding some representation in law for their form of relationship. I do have a problem when terms are used which are associated with conditions which do not apply.

Apartheid goes far further in the denial of human rights than simply the “right to be known as a committed partner” as the author should know and if he does not, then he should not use words he does not understand.

As for “I value human rights and the principle of equal treatment.”

It is a shame he did not practice “equal treatment” when he was on the bench of the family law court. There are legions of men who can and I am sure will denounce Nicholson in that regard.

The word marriage keeps being quoted, like it was some sort of sacred cow. It is not about marriage, its about two people in a loving and committed relationship, being given legal equality under law to protect their relationship.

This legal recognition will affect no one, but the respective couple. To those who would deny same sex couples this moral right, then it would appear, you have not experienced true love in your life.

"The voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others."

I got married in a Christian church, we were adults under English law and voluntarily went through the ceremony. By mutual agreement, we had the children we both wanted. OK so far.

But we didn't remain together 'for life'. Our 'voluntary union' ended when we parted. We divorced in court. We no longer fitted the seemingly all-important definition, but life went on.

After a while I met a wonderful lady who was also married in church and divorced in court and we were together for over 22 years. No way were we going to have children together. We bought a house and started a business, which we operated together. Neither of us saw the need for marriage, but we could have married if we had chosen to.

If only one of us had been working, the other could not have claimed Centrelink benefits. If we had been a same-sex couple, that restriction would not have applied. Something wrong here!

The hospital where my wife [I make no apology for using that term] spent her last few days put a camp bed in her room so that we could be together. We had different surnames and no-one asked if we were legally married. If we had been a same-sex couple, maybe things would not have been quite so easy. Something wrong here!

I have been fortunate to meet another divorced lady and we are bringing love and kindness into one another's lives. There will be no more children. Whether or not we marry is our choice and no-one else's. But, unlike a same-sex couple, we have a choice. Something wrong here!

Maybe the word 'marriage' is the stumbling block to a suitable legal union for same-sex couples [or anyone else, for that matter, who prefers a different term]. Roget's Thesaurus gives a few alternatives. I like 'Love Match'. It carries no baggage and shouldn't upset the superstitious, the dogmatic or the heartless. And it certainly wouldn't cause the world to come to an end!

It's all quite confusing but I know I'll never let anyone who thinks an arsehole looks good to decorate my house.

It is a nonsense assertion by opponents of same-sex relationship recognition -- homocontrarian quacks, theological supremacists, Jesus misinterpreters, homophobes and conservative control freaks -- to claim that individuals or society will suffer as a result of same-sex marriage or civil unions. Ask any of them to detail exactly WHOSE lives will be detrimented by same-sex relationship recognition and HOW. They won't answer. Not in any coherent, meaningful sense that bears relevance to the diverse reality of ordinary people and the mosaic of life.

Conversely, current relationship law militates against the flourishing of same-sex attracted persons and, where present, their children. Providing legal equivalence would remove unfair and unreasonable disadvantage for these people.

This is not a debate about same-sex attraction (which is rightly legal). Nor is it about incest, paedophilia or bestiality. People who raise those spectres cheapen the debate & distract from the issue, which is relationships, not illegal fetishes. Nor is it about who can have children. Relationship law reform will not alter the biological reality that a same-sex attracted person can procreate by common means if they wish. Moreover, the law doesn't exclude other non-procreative couples from marriage.

It's about recognising, encouraging & rewarding commitment between two consenting adults -- regardless of gender. It's also about the ability of a majority to look beyond short-term self interest to improve the lot of a minority that wants, needs and deserves federal relationship reform -- to the long term benefit of society.

Bredan, nice post. In the absence of an answer to "Ask any of them to detail exactly WHOSE lives will be detrimented by same-sex relationship recognition and HOW." I'll put on my cheeky hat and venture an answer on their behalf. Any that disagree can then try and provide a more useful answer.

Perhaps many are somewhat intrigued by same-sex relationships and need the legal issues as an additional safeguard to lessen the chances of going down that path themselves. They think that it is wrong but a part of them wants to try it. Some are afraid that their own lives will be damaged by same-sex relationships.

For those who are more confident in our sexual orientation or who don't regard it as forbidden fruit there is little to fear from this issue.

Any of you who oppose same-sex relationships who don't think that is the reason for your opposition are welcome to post a more applicable response to the question.

R0bert

Homosexual marriages are wrong because it is weird. Arguments used to defend same sex marriage can be applied to polygamous relationships. Only a male and a female can produce a child. Children need a mother and father in a commited relationship. Marriage is for the assumed biological kids, not just the parents.

Same sex legislation is a waste of time and taxpayers money

Davo, isn't almost everything which we did not grow up with "weird"?

Some of it turns out to be good, others bad and some I'm persoanlly indifferent to but don't feel a need to stop others enjoying it.
I find eating oysters weird, I have tried it, don't like it but if someone else wants to indulge then it's no skin off my nose as long as the environment is not unreasonably harmed by the harvesting of them.

I like bushwalking especially backpacking, I know plenty of people who find that weird. Camping in a remote spot in the mountains on a cold night with no fire place and a very thin mattress after lugging a heavy backpack up the side of the mountain just does not do it for them. Should I be banned from backpacking just because others find it weird or maybe I could be allowed to backpack but not allowed to carry a tent because tents are for crowded campgrounds at easter? Some people might feel that their tent is devalued if I use my small tent in the mountains away from the crowds.

As for the thing about children will you apply the same logic to couples who for various reasons cannot have children? I'm not planning on having any more, not sure if I will ever remarry but one day I might.

R0bert

Labelling anyone who disagrees with your opinion as 'Homophobic' is a pathetic way to argue, especially from a retired judge.

FYI: Homosexuals and heterosexuals have exactly the same rights in regards to marriage. So discrimination is not possible

Also, the government's legislation of marriage and the rights thereof are about encouraging the behaviours that benefit society and the people therein. Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman, and has been proven by thousands of years of cross cultural experience to be the best way to order and raise families.

Articles such as this need to provide a much better rationale to move away from a well tried standard towards something that has been shown to reduce life span, happiness and fertility rates.

What does it take to get the message through, Alan Grey?

Heterosexual people have the right to marry their life partner. Homosexual people do not.

The negative consequences of this disparity are enormous. Homosexual couples pay higher taxes, receive fewer benefits, and in some states are denied access to each other in the case of medical incapacity.

Imagine if someone told you that you didn’t have the right to be consulted about the treatment of your comatose partner. Yes, just imagine it, and imagine how you would feel.

Then imagine that because your comatose partner needs full-time nursing care, the Commonwealth is insisting that your partner’s half of your jointly-owned house be sold to fund that nursing care. So not only are you losing your partner, you’re also losing the home that you’ve lived in all the time you’ve been together.

This is the reality facing same-sex couples all the time, and it’s compounded by the mind-numbing ignorance of otherwise well-meaning people like yourself who say that we have the same rights with respect to marriage.

It’s never too late to acquire a little bit of compassion, Alan. Go for it.

Alan
I have a question for you.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that homosexuality has NO bad effects either to the homosexuals themselves or to society. It's still against the bible though. Would you still oppose it even if no one was harmed?

To those who oppose legal rights for same sex couples, please explain yourselves ( apologies Pauline).

*All I hear is marriage is only between a man and a woman.

It is about legal equity for same sex couples, as opposite sex couples enjoy, with the all the same legal safeguards.

Having Worked in a domestic violence unit, it would appear marriage is'nt quite like what we think it should be. Adding the divorce figures, it makes for a pretty weak argument.

* It is about having children, creating a family.

It may atonish some people, gay men and lesbians can procreate, they choose not too, like many same sex couples choose not too.

* Its unchristian and against the bibles teaching.

Where does it say that? Surely is that not someones interpretation from the Old Testament to the new testament. A sort of theological "Spin".

To Citizen, who takes the usual put down of homosexuals, which we are use to, as we experience it everyday of our lives. A quote.

The Bible does contain six admonitions concerning homosexuals and homosexual activity. However it also contains 362 admonitions concerning heterosexuals and heterosexual activity:

Now, this doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals as much as homosexuals. It just means heterosexuals need a great deal more supervision.

The biggest problem with all those "but the Bible says" people is that they are applying a modern concept to a 2000 year old text. Homosexuality as understood today simply didn't exist way back when.

In researching this contentious issue, I stumbled across an excellent website which deals with just that problem:
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/9409.htm

The article contains many different opinions from those of various religious persuasions, and their views on the Bible as pertaining to homosexuality.

A highly recommended read for those on all sides of the debate.

And thank you Kipp for that quote - I've been looking for it!

Perhaps we should go the other way. the way that marriage is breaking down in this day and age we should not be preventing gay marriage, we should instead be thinking about the entire concept of marriage as useless.

Marriage is no longer marriage - the word has lost its meaning. Government either has an interest in regulating relationships, in terms of laws and registering ceremonies, or it hasn't.

Perhaps it hasn't.

After all, what is wrong with polygamy, so long as all parties are consenting? Taking one more step, so long as the couple does not breed with the risk of genetic defect, what is wrong legitimising with a sexual relationship between two adult siblings? I am not encouraging this idea, but if 'marriage' is to be permitted or encouraged for gays, why not for siblings, after all, who is being hurt? Especially if they 'love' each other.

Either marriage remains 'marriage' or it doesn't. Modern marriage is just a temporary union anyway, there is nothing special about it, so lets enable gays to be married, and anyone else who wants to, in any combination of consenting adults.

By the way, what has love got to do with marriage anyway? - love is not traditionally part of marriage, so why drag that particular emotional defect into a discussion about the basic unit of society.

To talk about making same sex relationships equal before the law as normal relationships is nonsense, because the relationships themselves are different. Nichol's statement about apartheid is rubbish. Homosexual relationships will always be separate to normal ones whether inside or outside the law.

Several posters attempt to distinguish homosexual relationships from other perverse behaviours by claiming that they are between two rational consenting adults. This is incorrect. A homosexual relationship is not rational, it is a result of a behavioural disorder. People with behavioural disorders need help, not a law.

Rob
quote "To talk about making same sex relationships equal before the law as normal relationships is nonsense, because the relationships themselves are different." EVERY relationship is different Rob. That's NO reason to discriminate against them.

Now let's look at your next wierd assertion.
Quote "A homosexual relationship is not rational, it is a result of a behavioural disorder. People with behavioural disorders need help, not a law." Totally wrong I'm afraid. The international psychiatric associations no longer recognise homosexuality as a disorder. In fact they assert that they were WRONG to EVER classify it as such. Afraid your assertions are groundless rob.

here's a question though. Most fundies offer the baseless claim that homosexuality is a disorder. Do dogs, lizards, chimpanzees & rams suffer from the same disorder rob? All of these species have members which prefer homosexual acts. Indeed endocrine studies have shown that homosexuality has the same basic origin as heterosexuality. It is an orientation which is formed in the foetus' brain before birth. Sorry rob but your assertions are groundless. Never mind...you can go back to your true reason. i.e. you KNOW that homosexuals are bad because you just don't like them. Isn't that the true reason?

As a Christian I actually believe that marriage was intended by God to be between two consenting adults, one male, one female (even though the Old Testament has many examples of polygamous marriages - with concubines added on).

However, I am not going to take that fundamentalist view here, because we do not live in a world where Christian views should have primacy: Attempting to make others conform to Christian beliefs is bound to fail.

Hence, I am not against gay relationship / gay marriages: but neither am I for them. The government is not 'Christian' as we live in a secular democracy. Hence purely moral issues, between adults acting out of informed consent, where no one is 'harmed' beyond what they have consented to, is none of the government's business.

Therefore I a am also not in favour of laws about morality, such as against prostitution, so long as the workers are working from a position of informed consent. I would prefer that prostitution as an institution not exist, but it does, and Christians are never going to stop it.

the best way that Christians can act, IMHO, is to improve their own lives, and tell others what God would have them do, without trying to force anyone to do it.

Marriage in this society has failed, if religious institutions want to conduct ceremonies that have meaning to the participants, so be it, but the government, at all levels, should butt out, with the exception of ensuring that people who chose to participate in marriage, and children, should be treated fairly when those relationships break down.

Equality in law has not, never has been, nor ever will be, the over riding conbsideration of legislators enacting law. The primary considertion for legislators has been in creating laws that allow for the peaceful propagation of a society. If Justice Nichols believes in absolute equality as a human right, then perhaps he would agree to working for the same wages as a builders labourer?

Homosexual behavior was illegal in Western societies for centuries for the very good reason that such behaviour it was expressely forbidden by our God. But in this secular and tolerant age , people have reconsidered homosexual behaviour as being as genetically directed behaviour which is relatively harmless.

But the legalisation of homosexuality was never intended to bestow social approval. It reflected the idea that no amount of punishment was going to stop homosexuals anyway, and provided that they engaged in their activities in private, then few people really cared. Except, perhaps, for taxpayers, who have to fund the lavish lifestyles of proctologists, who are the ones delegated to repair the damage to the one way valve of homosexual mens rectums.

But after gaining legal sanction, homosexuals now crave social approval and even respectability. This has resulted in various stunts being performed by homosexual activists demanding equality with normal people. But most normal people regard homosexuality only just above paedophilia, bestiality and necrophilia, all of which are genetically directed behaviour which is not considered acceptable behaviour at all.

I predict that antagonism towards homosexuals will increase in the future, because of the objectional tactics that homosexuals are now using to promote their cause, which recently included brain washing pre schoolers with school books that presented their peculiar sexuality as natural.

Let the Gays have their own special service but not call it Marriage.What sort of an indentity crisis would beseige hetrosexual children raised by Gays no matter how loving the environment? Would they be given a choice to select their sexual prefrences in such pro-homosexual environment.

With the internet and our open door policy to all sexual activity,paedophiles are shamelessly peddling their trade,since they know that through early sexual imprinting,they have created another perverted,confused,sexual preditor.Really trying to teach pre-schoolers about sexual roles at our kindies is beyond the pale.Let them enjoy their childhood innocence.

Children can't choose their parents and we should not be pandering to the whims of a minority so their rights will outshine the right of a child to experience both a Mother and a Father.

I think our children are confused and screwed up enough now in our borderless mentality,without having to deal with two hermaphrodites whose union is impotent.

Homosexualilty has always existed & legal recognition makes sense, but same-sex couples seem to want it all...including kids. Seems kinda ironic to insist on rights to something by definition forgone.

It is not natural for a heterosexual to have a homosexual relationship. Thou shalt not lie, especially to yourself! Similarlarly a homosexual in a heterosexual relationship isn't natural either. Thou shalt not lie! You deny how God created you. The orientation of love that God gave you at birth is natural to you, and is harmless if you do not abuse another person or lie. That is not perversion, it is love, truth, and nothing else is. Science is now proving that homosexuality is as old as humanity iself. It is there for a reason.

Those who question God's innocent creations, assume a position greater than God.

Yee of little faith!

Let us follow the bible, the Tora, and the Koran without perverting their words for selfish agendas.

If you have committed Adultary, then by the ten commandments and the Koran, you are in mortal sin. You deserve the death sentence by "natural" people throwing rocks at you to your death.

Jesus made his famous statement "he who hath not sinned, cast the first stone". Well Leigh certainly did! You shame Jesus, and God in one hateful statement. May the Lord have mercy on you!

Those who ate seafood or pork: you are an abomination according to the bible, the Tora and the Koran. Shame on you!

Woman who cut their hair, according to the bible, you are whores, you deserve death. That is why many Pentacostal women never cut their hair.

Those who lie, cheat, bear false witness, especially for greed, hell awaits you. Should this be Australian law too?

Bring on the apartheit according to the laws of the bible, the Tora and the Koran without any perverse excuses, and make this law IMMEDIATELY!

Equating paedaphelia to homosexuality ignores the fact that a vast majority of paedophiles are heterosexuals, and commit this abuse within their own families. The statistics prove it! Do we ban heteroxuals for THEIR tendancies? The same stones that you cast against innocent people are waiting for you. Bring it on! Regardless, the world's population will breed on anyway.

A few corrections to neckie & arjay’s posts.

Myth #1 Homosexuality is unnatural & God is against it.

Reality: Homosexuality is found extensively in nature. Don't believe me? Try reading these sites.
http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

http://www.backyardnature.net/j/o/homosex.htm

By the way. Since homosexuality is a part of nature then homosexuals CANNOT influence their children’s sexuality one way or the other.

http://www.gaysouthafrica.org.za/homosexuality/familyvalues.asp

Since homosexuality is found in nature it follows that homosexuality is natural in origin & CANNOT be unnatural. Let’s face it. According to the evidence homosexuals are born homosexuals [just like any other homosexual animal] and it follows that God CANNOT rationally demand that homosexuals stop being what they are. Why? For the same reason that God cannot rationally demand people stop having red hair & being left handed - they are born that way. And NO ONE, including God, can rationally demand someone do something about how they were born.

Myth #3 Homosexuals are trying to brainwash students by teaching them that homosexuality is natural.

Reality: As we’ve just seen there is a LARGE amount of evidence that homosexuality IS a part of nature. That being so how can it be brainwashing to teach students the facts? Another point to consider. Since some of those students will be homosexuals it follows that those homosexual students should be taught that homosexuality is part of nature. How? Through age specific means. For kids little kids it could be cartoon pictures of a child with two mothers or fathers. For a teenager it could be a story about a homosexual child facing someone like neckie in his daily life :D Such stories hardly destroy a child’s innocence. Rather they teach the child about reality in a non-threatening fashion.

What about the dangers of turning the child into a homosexual? I’ll deal with that issue in my next post.

On purely a numbers basis the majority of paedophiles should be hetro-deviates since hetrosexuals make up 95% of the population.There are too many homosexuals who have an unfetted,ill disciplined attitude attitude towards sex and hence suffer most from aids and other STDs.Sodomisings little boys I thought was a homosexual activity no matter what your marital status and it is this ill disciplined attitude in the gay community that is perpetuating it.Too many gays wear their sexuality like some badge of honour and use it as a source of power to push their influence on the rest of society.Just tone it down and be like the rest of humanity instead of continually seeking victum status.

Not all gays are paedophiles but we all have to draw a line in the sand somewhere.Wanting to have sex with anything that moves,how and when you feel like it,is not a sign of a civilised society.All individuals not matter what their sexual preferences must have the discipline to respect others beliefs,and show at least some parameters of restraint when engaging socially with others.

Bosk,
"By the way. Since homosexuality is a part of nature then homosexuals CANNOT influence their children’s sexuality one way or the other"

Forgive if I'm missed something as I haven’t read all the posts.

I've been told that men who are normally hetro., if confined to prison or the like (where women are not accessible), will often engage in homo acts.

Would not that indicate that there is an element of conditioning/environment,and that children can be influenced.

Good point Horus. Your faultless argument explains why heterosexual couples never produce homosexual offspring.

Hang on...

Horus

You ask does the fact that men engage in homosexual acts in prison [when women aren't around] indicate that environment can shape sexuality? My answer is no! Why? Because when those men get out of prison, what happens? They immediately go back to having sex with women. It was the lack of women that had them performing homosexual acts. NOT because prison changed their sexuality.

Which raises the last topic.

Myth #4 Sexuality in children is easily altered from heterosexuality to homosexuality.

Reality: Children's sexuality is formed either before birth or shortly after. Once formed it is virtually unchangable. Want evidence? A few years ago a baby boy, was changed into a girl through an operation by doctors. The kid was brainwashed by a psychiatrist. Nagged at by parents. And had their views supported by his changed body. Did they make the kid desire boys? Nope. he still prefered girls. (as shown on the documentary "As nature Made HIm"). That would seem to support the FACT that sexuality is pretty unchangeable.

Now a question for you. Have you noticed that Leigh, Neckie & Arjay have merely made the same wild asserttions over & over again with NO evidence to back it up? Do you think that might be because their views have NOTHING to do with the evidence?

Approaching this from yet another angle.

Marriages in the West are breaking up at greater than significant rate, to the extent that divorce demonstrates the futility of heterosexuals getting married and trying to stay married.

Men still want at least a shadow of traditional marriage, where the traditionally masculine traits are valued and they don't have to act against the brain hard wiring that took place before birth.

Men's and women's brains are different, and they have different expectations and what they consider to be 'needs'. Women are usually responsible for taking the first steps to separate and divorce. This is usually because they feel that their needs are not being met. Women feel that their 'needs' include 'communication' in a way that men are simply not able to meet, for reason of brain wiring. Men cannot become imitation women.

So, what women actually need as partners are other women. That august organisation, ‘Relations Australia' has even come out and said in a press release that if a woman cannot find the man that they want then they should look for another woman. This implies a certain flexibility of sexual preference.

When men cannot need the ‘needs’ of a women, with the possible exception of being sperm donors and providing financial support for children, and possibly spousal support, why shouldn’t women repartner with another woman; and why shouldn’t they be allowed to marry?

At least in a percentage of ex-marriages this would relieve the ex-husband of the responsibilities of spousal maintenance.

Perhaps, additionally, it could be considered as the demands of modern heterosexual relationships are a minefield for men, those men who are inclined to play for either team may decide that marrying another man may be a better option than trying to meet the unsatisfiable demands of the 'modern woman'.

In short, heterosexual marriage and divorce is not meeting the requirements for stability that can be considered to be necessary for a prosperous society. Maybe, as men cannot meet women’s ‘needs’, and women don’t want to accept that men cannot become surrogate females, homosexual marriage should be encouraged.

To Mr Bosk.

Your first premise is incorrect. Just because something “occurs in nature” does not mean that it is “natural.”

Serial killer Garry Ridgeway (the Green River Killer) admitted to murdering 58 young women. While inter species killing does occur in some species, it is not natural for any species to kill breeding females. Such behaviour in humans is definitely not considered “natural” just because serial killers exist.

The human rectum is a one way valve. Forcefully inserting objects into it from the outside in causes serious damage which proctologists are delegated to repair. Homosexuality is therefore demonstrably unnatural. It is a genetic disease which we all hope may be cured, one day.

Your second premise is also wrong. Homosexual behaviour is not necessarily an and/or situation, it is a continuum. Some people may be mildly homosexual, others a degree or two more, while others are dangerously close to full blown homosexuality, and others are very homosexual. By not making homosexuality respectable, normal people hope to influence those who have some control over their peculiar sexuality.

Neckie
Point #1
You argument about a serial killer had NOTHING to do with My point. Please understand. That which exist in nature is natural. Homosexuals exist in nature therefore they are natural. A individual which serial kills its own species is NOT found innature. It merely exists. Therefore serial killers are NOT natural. Nice try but totally wrong.

point 2. OI never said that sexuality wasn't a spectrum. however that also misses the point. Sexuality is formed at or close to birth. That being so it is unchangable. To make people lead miserable in order to "influence them" is reprehensible at best.

You also assert that homosexuality is peculiar. Evidence please. You do have some I hope. Otherwise it's merely just some more unsubstantiated assertions.

Bosk
To develop my earlier comment:
I grant you that once the hetro. males are out of jail they tend to revert to hetro. acts.
But in our society we have many subcultures (or even minisubcultures) which can act very much like mental prisons. People in such subcultures although (in theory) free to move and free to mix, are constrained by group thinking & norms & in some of these subcultures homo. appears to be the norm.

Equally much of the homo. activities you see expressed in nature are by way of young males who are blocked from having access to females by the ruling alpha male(s), if and when they displace the alpha male, they revert to hetro.

The invoking of 'nature' as a basis for acceptance of homosexuality has a few flaws. I will suggest those below. In doing so I am not using this to attack human homosexuality. I personally take a Christian viewpoint on homosexuality, but I also recognise that Christianity cannot make a claim to being the sources of all laws in this society.

There may be instances of 'homosexuality' in nature, but these are in the very small minority. If the majority of nature is to be examined there is very little evidence for marriage either. Most species have the 'parents' come together for a mating then the 'father' departs. In the case of some insects and spiders the male is eaten. This is a logical biological situation, as it means that the mother receives sufficient nourishment to reproduce, hence in dying the male becomes reproductively successful.

In other species the dominant male of a group is the sole male allowed to reproduce, leading to a form of 'polygamy'. This system has been used in many human societies, and therefore can be considered, if the example of nature is to be followed, as justification for polygamous human relationships to be just as acceptable, if not more acceptable, than monogamy.

Nature is replete with examples of males moving in on re-existing relationships and killing the offspring of those relationships, before mating with the female. Unfortunately this also occurs in human societies, as the two types of people most likely to kill children are their mother or their mother’s new partner who is not the father. If we are to follow nature then we should condone, from a purely evolutionary-biological perspective, this behaviour amongst humans. Fortunately we do not follow nature in this way.

Humans are a part of nature, yes, but are not restricted by the biological urges that are inherent in our genes and hormones. We hope that we have moved, in an evolutionary way, past that. If and when we claim the justification of nature alone for our actions we are reducing ourselves to the roles of beasts instead of sentient beings.

Neckie

The Oxford Dictionary defines “nature” as:

• noun 1 the physical world, including plants, ANIMALS, the landscape, and natural phenomena, as OPPOSED to humans or human creations.

Now homosexual animals exist in the physical world.
http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

It follows therefore that homosexuality is part of nature & to quote the Oxford Dictionary again the word “natural” is defined as:
• adjective 1 EXISTING IN or derived from NATURE.

Since homosexuality exists in nature &, according to the Oxford Dictionary, anything which exists in nature is natural, then homosexuality is natural. Get it!

Horus
You assert that the animals which were observed performing homosexual acts were merely forced to do so because of the lack of willing females due to an alpha male. Totally wrong I’m afraid.

The latest scientific studies tested for homosexuality [i.e. attraction to the same sex] NOT just homosexual acts. To quote from the latest study:
“Around 8 percent of domestic rams display preferences for other males as sexual partners. Scientists don't believe it's related to dominance or flock hierarchy; rather, their typical motor pattern for intercourse is merely directed at rams instead of ewes. “
"They're one of the few species that have been systematically studied, so we're able to do very careful and controlled experiments on sheep," Roselli said. "We used rams that had CONSISTENTLY shown EXCLUSIVE sexual preference for other rams when they were GIVEN A CHOICE between rams and ewes."

Since you contend that homosexuality is the result of environment you might also try to explain why physical differences in the brain linked to sexuality have been detected between homosexual & heterosexual sheep? Physical differences indicate a physical cause.

Conclusion: Homosexuals are born that way.

Hamlet
You contend that we should rise above our animal instincts.
I would argue that the enjoyment of our sexual nature [not merely for reproduction] is a precious part of what makes us human. After all our human sexuality influences EVERYTHING we do, say & think. How more central to our being can sexuality be?

Bosk,

Nature also contains numerous examples of incest, after all, even domestic cats from the same litter, if not desexed, will breed.

However natural incest is, it is nearly universally condemned amongst human societies.

As humans, rather than beasts, it would be hoped that if we make decisions about relationships and what is 'normal' we should not fall back upon nature.

Nature usually involves the strong dominating the weak, and the 'laws' of nature usually involve no measure of the human qualities of mercy and compassion.

If you want to argue for the legitimacy of certain types of human relationships that do not specifically involve breeding, then nature is not the way to go.

However, in terms of reproduction, the human child is essentially born prematurely in all cases. In nature most newborn animals can, within say 5% of their lifespan, look after themselves and even breed. In humans this figure is around 10 to 15% of the modern western lifespan, and maybe 35% of the 'natural' human lifespan of around 30 - 35 years. In nature, humans require at least two mature humans to get them to the point of self sufficiency. Almost a million years of experience has indicated that this is best carried out by humans with genetic investments in that child.

That is, two parents, by nature male and female, and their relatives.

This is nature at work, and has resulted in the institution of marriage.

That is not to say that two people who cannot breed should not be together. All I am saying is don't claim nature as a precedent for homosexual marriage. By all means, let, even encourage, homosexual marriage, but don't claim that it is 'natural'.

It is a shame that people persist in rendering gay civil unions, based on consensual and legitimate love between two adults: a "crime". To say that consensual love could be a "crime" is in itself hateful. Their lives are none of you freakin business anyway.

The real stinker of a statement above: "Sodomisings little boys I thought was a homosexual activity no matter what your marital status and it is this ill disciplined attitude in the gay community that is perpetuating it". This is utterly wrong and possibly a hate crime itself. Most paedophiles are heterosexual, and molesting girls is equally as bad as mostering boys. Get over this fact. You have no basis of this claim: most lesbian and gay people I know are sickened by paedophilia.

BTW If any paedophile touched my children I would be violent towards them. That is a natural parental instinct. But hateful people are bad role models for children! Let lesbian and gay men live their own lives.

They don't wear victim politics on their sleaves, they just want a life. How can you possibly have "a life" when society says you can't have a loving relationship: "a life" with another consenting adult? No one is asking you to understand them. The proposal does not mean having orgies and wanton sex, and pocking the wizzer where-ever possible, or behaviour in jails. It is about a commitment to one person. This is the opposite to perverse behaviour as it is love and commitment. The proposal does not mention children or adoption either.

Lesbian or gay people are probably gay at birth. This may not be genetic, it may even be truama in pregnancy. This theory doesn't really matter. There will never be a cure, it is impossible. I hope it never comes.

I think the world would be a very dull place without lesbian and gay people, and I would be sad for my children to live in a world without such wonderful people. Otherwise, we will really look like a communitst state: dull, grey and fashion would naturally die. Yuck!

An excellent paper I have found for all those in the "but the Bible/God says..." camp:

http://www.mccanchorage.com/PDFs/morepreciouslove.pdf

And to address the paedophilia issue:

1. Almost all paedophiles are male.
2. The vast majority self-identify as heterosexual.
3. Paedophilia is an attraction to / preference for children. Children. Notice that is a non-gender specific word. Children.
4. Regardless of the acts involved, paedophilia does not have heterosexual and homosexual components depending upon the genders of those involved - it comes down to access. Priests have access to alter boys, fathers have access to sons and daughters, etc.
5. Paedophilia has as much in common with heterosexuality as it does with homosexuality, which is to say nothing. Notice the "sexuality" part. Important bit that. Look it up.

Allowing heterosexuals to marry (and divorce) at will hasn't opened the floodgates to polygamy, paedophilia and people wanting to marry their pet horse - why would allowing homosexuals cause such things?

Take away the religious bias and the ignorance and the whole issue boils down to "it's ours, and you can't have it so there".

I am a gay man with many heterosexual friends. One couple was married recently and I was the witness; I therefore signed the document authorising and recognising their marriage under law. I hope to sign many more friends' marriage certificates, but I also hope to ask one of them to sign mine one day.

A few suggestions for those arguing for same-sex unions. First, do not bother to use the term marriage. It is inflammatory and moves us off the real point faster than anything else. Civil union is by far the better term, as it anchors the discussion in the secular (marriage is really a religious practice) and reminds us this is a matter of citizens' rights. Second, this is not an argument about the (moral) legitimacy of homosexuality. The people who raise issues of deviance and the like are never going to shift their opinions, and it is better to steer clear of this wholly irrelevant tangent.

May be going out on a limb here…. I think one of the much understated reasons that people are against the legitimisation of homosexuality is that they think anal sex is yucky.

Good on you Redneck for at least explicitly stating, “The human rectum is a one way valve. Forcefully inserting objects into it from the outside in causes serious damage which proctologists are delegated to repair. Homosexuality is therefore demonstrably unnatural.”. There used to be laws against anal sex – even male to female within marriage.

However there is a logical problem with this. Heterosexual people can have male to female anal sex. Does that make heterosexual people unnatural? Some homosexual people might never have anal sex – does that make them natural? Does this human rectum one way valve apply to the oesophagus as well – do you think oral sex is unnatural? I think you have confused homosexuality with anal sex. So if you want to crusade against anal sex do so but realise that it is not limited to homosexuals.

Martin I agree that Civil Union is a much better term. I think heterosexuals should be able to have a civil union too if they want to.

Much debate centres on what rights & responsibilities you can have simply by being married. Why not simply allocate rights & responsibilities to individuals and then it won’t matter what relationship you are in eg. no dependent spouse allowance for taxpayers but their spouse can claim unemployment benefits? For parents of children allocate an allowance 50% to the father and 50% to the mother

Hamlet

A few corrections:

1) Read my last post CAREFULLY. I argued that homosexuality is natural NOT marriage. Something is natural if it is found in nature. Marriage is NOT found in nature. It merely exists. Try reading my posts before commenting next time ok?

2) You then argue that marriage arose out of heterosexual reproduction. Wrong! To quote the Oxford Classical Dictionary "marriage in the ancient world was as much a matter of power & wealth as it was the continuance of the family lineage"
You only have to look at the custom of the dowry to realise that.

3) If marriage were solely about reproduction how are we to explain the acceptance of same sex unions throught history. In ancient Greece, Rome, Africa & among many American Amerindian tribes to name just a few examples.
http://www.bidstrup.com/phobiahistory.htm

Indeed if marriage arose out of heterosexual reproduction then the question must be asked which type of marriage?
• polygamy?
• polygyny?
• polyandry?
• endogamy?
• exogamy?
• common law marriage?
• monogamy?

Sorry Hamlet but your arguments are based on a mistaken ideas concerning historical practices.

Martin I wish you luck finding the right guy. Saint, Pedant, Sancho, Unravelled all I can say is brilliant arguments guys. I'm off. If you lot are staying to battle it out I wish you well.

We as a society cannot tolerate any law/legislation or practice that discriminates against any individual or group. A question must be asked by those who are supporters of such laws. ie:If by our acceptance, or apathy, a government becomes bolder in its legislative endeavours how do we stop it when that government turns its attention to us?
Throughout history the establishment of totalitarian governments have relied on the bulk of the populace to remain onside or at least apathetic in relation to discriminatory laws that don't directly affect them. It is only later that the general population finds itself subject to those same or slightly modified laws and freedom is lost.
I freely admit in an Australian context this result is unlikely, but given experiences in other nations it is worthwhile to remember that power changes culture.

Bosk

I was talking about largely pre-historical, and definitely pre-classical practises.

I would suggest that you read Jared Diamond's 'The Third Chimpanzee: The Evolution and Future of the Human Animal' and his lighter but still serious ' Why is Sex Fun? The Evolution of Human Sexuality', both of which look at human sexuality, and relationship issues from a biological-evolutionary / sociological perspective.

The human species has had 20,000 generations of family and clan based child raising and relationships, and maybe 150 generations in the 'historical' period. Those 20,000 generations still influence the way we see ourselves, and our relationships, today.

To those who argue for tolerance:
If I decide I want to marry my dog, and have all the associated recognitions.
The current law(s) will say no-can't do.
As weird as it may sound to the ‘bigots’ that may be my/our thing.
Why am I/we being discriminated against?
If my dog & I are consensual, would you countenance such a union being recognized by law with all the trimmings?

Angela, nice post. Self interest is something worth keeping in mind when we consider the implications of Government's playing favourites.

As for it not happening in Australia - as a "Child support payer" I've seen it happening here. Well meaning intentions designed to help worst case scenarios contributing to a much greater wrong. Kids being kept from parents to help the other parent maximise benefits and one parent being penalised because of the choices of another. An agency with a formula and no ability to take cause into account. Add to that the damage done by Nicholsens "Family Court". Governments just don't do that stuff well.

Hamlet, thanks for taking a saner christian approach than most.

Martin_C - some can change their viewpoints. There are those who will not let any weight of evidence change their viewpoints but others actually seek the truth. I used to be a lot more homophobic than I am now - a variety of reasons including former religious beliefs, a period in boarding school, the need to use public toilets regularly in my old job and a lack of understanding that the mardi gras does not represent the norm for homosexuals. I think that there is benefit in "normal" homosexuals letting straights understand that they exist, in particular I have really appreciated some of David_JS's posts duing the times that he has been active on the site. A counterpoint to holes in toilet walls and TV images of a bunch of guys flashing butt cheeks in Sydney needs to be out there to help those willing to learn.

R0bert

Hamlet
This is getting wierd.

The only way to learn about an institution [like marriage] is through writing.

writing originated in the 3rd millenium BCE in Mesopotamia.

So marriage has NO record stretching back 20,000 generations. We don't know what prehistoric people did.

All we have are old bones & examples of their funerary rites. That's it!

Please learn something about history BEFORE you make an argument based on it.

Ah Bosk, You seem to be peddling your own myths.

Of the animals in the wild that we see doing homosexual acts, how many are exclusively homosexual?

Since we see animals killing each other and their young in the wild, obviously this also is natural and so we should allow that too! Such fine logic you have....

As to your question to me, it is nonsensical. Essentially you are saying if homosexuality wasn't homosexuality would I have a problem with it.

As I said before, hetero and homo sexual people have exactly the same rights when it comes to marriage. Neither is allowed to marry anyone they want. Both are allowed to marry exactly the same categories of people.

Alan, "As I said before, hetero and homo sexual people have exactly the same rights when it comes to marriage. Neither is allowed to marry anyone they want. Both are allowed to marry exactly the same categories of people."

Logic but the kind of double speak that does not do credit to you.

To give a parallel

Some of your fellow christains go to great pains to emphasise the lack of religious freedom in muslim countries for non-muslims (I note that you seem to stay out of the general mossie bashing). Using the logic you have applied to this argument it can be argued that christains have exactly the same religious freedoms as muslims in those countries. The right to worship Allah and to win converts to the muslim faith. I doubt that many christains would consider that equality in religious freedom.

Mostly your posts seem to be much more honest than is portrayed by that comment on this issue, where did this double speak come from?

R0bert

My question is? WHO LET THEM OUT OF THE CLOSET TO BEGIN WITH? Homosexuality is no normal act. For those of you that think it is, you have a chemical imbalance in your brains. It does not take a genius to work out what the rectum is for: Its function is to store stool temporarily, until your body is ready to eliminate it. Eliminate: To leave out or omit from consideration; reject. Do you read that? REJECT. Now I ask. How would a car exhaust work if you were to force an object up it? I can tell you, it would block up and explode. Like the exhaust the rectum, is for outtake, now please explain to me how you call this homosexual act normal? God created Adam and Eve (NOT Adam and Steve)

But what the hell, Marriage is worth nothing these days; why not make it more of a joke?

And as for same sex parents: How selfish are you? Do you understand what sort of predicament you are putting the child in? The teasing and humiliation it will cop all through childhood and school

Jane, anal sex is not solely performed by homosexuals.

Horus re your post 14 June 2006 6:34:33am animals cannot consent to sexual relations or marriage with humans so your question is not an easy hypothetical. If you asked instead: “If I want to have a group marriage with 4 other people and all are consensual, would you countenance such a union being recognized by law with all the trimmings?”

My answer would be no I would not agree to a marriage but yes I would agree to a defined civil union and I think people should have all their rights as individuals (as above) and then people (adults capable of consent) can enter into whatever civil unions they like (eg. may agree to live as grandparent and grandchild even if no relation with associated financial and medical rights/responsibilities) and leave their superannuation to whoever they want and have whoever they want by their bedside in hospital. Before entering these civil unions an agreement would need to be drawn up. This would make lots of extra money for lawyers! I could get rich! (Just kidding)

R0bert, if government allowances for children were given 50% to each parent and each parent paid 50% of their child’s costs this would hopefully help the problem you describe as a child support payer.

Pedant
I'm not entirely clear as to what you mean by animals not being able to consent.
If you mean they haven’t the physical/mental capacity to consent -some animal owners would disagree.
If you mean the current law does not recognise animal consent- aren’t you just repackaging the proposition that under current law marriage is something between a man & a woman?

Bosk,
I also have my doubts about the rams study your previously cited.
I noted your quote:'Roselli said. "We used rams that had CONSISTENTLY shown EXCLUSIVE sexual preference for other rams when they were GIVEN A CHOICE between rams and ewes."
(If you have an exclusive preference, can it be anything but consistent?)
Or is he saying that at times they chose ewes but most times they chose rams (i.e. being bi)?
I suspect the rams were some poor wretches who had a rather warped/traumatised upbringing.
(They weren’t by chance New Zealand rams were they?

What a lot of fuss and obfuscation Alistair Nicholson has created with this article. Of course this was his intent. By division, one can dis-empower one's enemies' thoughts, and hence, conquer.

Should anyone have the stamina to read all of the above posts, one would see that the debate has become extremely personal and it relates to the legitimacy of homosexuality. Most of the posts do not relate to marriage. Some do, but it's just a tiny fraction. Good upon those posters who stayed on track.

But what is displayed above is a shocking realisation that many here among us think that marriage is about them, personally, and them alone. Of course it is NOT!

Marriage is not about men or women, but about children and the responsibility required, by law, by religion, by custom and by culture, to care, nurture and raise them. Marriage is about kids and their well-being. It is NOT about the professed love of adults nor partnership agreements nor contractual financial arrangements - it's about kids.

When homosexuals, and heterosexuals too, stop thinking about their own beings and begin to think about kids, maybe, just maybe, people like Alistair Nicholson - Australian children's worst enemy - might go away. And maybe too, homosexuals will go back into the closet where they belong and do the things they like to do without putting it into everybody's face. Something we could probably all do without.

Yes, I have sex, but I don't turn it into a public political crusade. Neither should homosexuals. It's personal and it's definitely NOT political. It's between me and someone else. One thing is for sure, my sexual habits have absolutley nothing to do with "the best interests of the child" and that's why society created marriage. I do hope Mr Nicholson might read this and I do hope homosexuals will stop flapping off about themselves, their poxy rights and start thinking about the lives and love of kids.

Horus
What a load of garbage.

The article's word's made the meaning perfectly clear. The rams concerned had NO interest at all in ewes, ONLY other rams. Amazing how you can read the words "that had CONSISTENTLY shown EXCLUSIVE sexual preference for other rams" & think it means anything else. May I sugggest that next time before you post you look up the words on Dictionary.com.

When you next make a wild claim you might want to back it up with some evidence...not just another wild assertion, or an argument based on your assertion but EVIDENCE! You know...Like the stuff I'm providing.

Jane
If I understand your argument correctly you are arguing that if someone is using a part of their body in a way that is not normal then they shouldn't be allowed to be married. Why exactly? Lots of people use body parts abnormally. Heterosexuals have anal sex [just as abnormal as homosexual anal sex]. Women wear ear rings [that's abnormal. The ears purpose is to hear NOT hang lumps of metal off].
shall we bar all these people from marriage? No? Then why should we deny it to homosexuals?

What non-human species allegedly do and what allegedly happened in historical/prehistorical times is irrelevant to the question of allowing civil unions for homosexual people.

It is now generally accepted that homosexual people are born that way. I'm sure someone will post some supportive evidence of this if anyone wants to argue the point. Being a homosexual adult and wanting the sexual, emotional and loving company of another homosexual adult is not, in itself, harmful or damaging to society.

When I was a young man and wanted to marry a young woman, no-one asked us if we intended to have sex and have children. This was simply assumed. Sometimes this assumption is wrong, but this does not in itself automatically invalidate a marriage. When much older heterosexual couples marry, it may be generally assumed that they can probably no longer have sex and most certainly can neither have, nor want children. But the marriage would not be opposed on those grounds.

Heterosexual sex can consist of many variations on what may be regarded as normal. Some of these variations can involve body parts not "normally" associated with sex and cannot result in pregnancy. But at least most of us [hopefully] don't dwell on what heterosexuals are doing sexually, so why should we take any particular interest in what homosexual people may or may not be doing?

Even with young people, they can't be "doing it" all the time, can they? For most of us, a satisfactory relationship also includes such things as love, friendship, companionship, working towards mutual goals, support in adversity and the comfortable feeling of growing old together. I can't see things from a homosexual aspect, but, as they are equally human beings, I would think that the same would apply.

For those who are hung up on what others may be doing sexually, I would ask this. What could possibly be the argument against allowing an old homosexual couple to have a civil union? After all, once they're too old for sex, what they would just be seeking is to be united in love, companionship and mutual support.

Have any of the gay-bashers on this forum ever met any gay people, or got to know them? What on earth makes a sexual union with a person of the same sex a "perversion"? As Pedant notes, "anal sex is not solely performed by homosexuals". Nor is cunnilingus or fellatio. Nor is mutual masturbation or just plain old kissing, cuddling and holding each other in bed.

Homosexual couples can do pretty much the same thing as other people. They can become fathers or mothers and the gay parents that I know are raising children in loving environments. What on earth is wrong with them having civil unions?

Bosk

All knowledge started with writing? So all archaeologists studying settlement pattens of pre-literate societies are simply wasting their time? The civilisations of the Inca and Aztec were not really civilizations because they did not have writing and therefore we should only look at what others wrote about them? (The Maya had a form or writing that started independently around 600bc)

The ancient iron age settlements of Europe, who did not use writing are also worthwhile simply dismissing?

And writing didn't just start in Mesopotamia. It actually started independently in Sumeria around 3000bc, and then independently again in China around 1300bc. I use 'BC' instead of the more post-modern and fanciful 'BCE' because I recognise that 'BCE' is only a fancy way of trying to exclude Christ from history.

Study of preliterate settlements reveal such interesting things as housing ideally suited to the equivalent of the modern 'family' unit, with occupancy of around 4 to 8 people and meeting houses of similar concept to modern religious ones, that have equivalents in more recent non-literate societies. (See the first episode of Simon Sharma's A History of Britain if you cannot be bothered reading about it.)

Of course these communities could have been full of homosexual people happily bonking and excluding breeders, but as most of these sites indicate that they had been settled for more than one generation it is hard to see how breeding did not take place.

Homosexuality (an invented term from the 1890s by the way - before then there was only behaviour, not identification by sexual preference) MAY have existed in pre-literate societies, but children were still produced by the standard method, and parents still made efforts to make sure that their DNA continued.

As I have said many times before - if you want to have homosexual 'marriage' then go for it: but by trying to justify it against evolutionary-anthropological-archaeological evidence you are only cheapening it. I am not against homosexual 'marriage', after all, to quote 'Jack McCoy' quoting someone else, "if gays want to live in misery like the rest of us then let them."

All,
These arguments are rarely a case of wowsers versus liberals
We are all wowsers to varying degrees
"Now, we are merely haggling over the price." .

A couple of generations ago we would have been arguing over the rights & wrongs of marrying a divorcée. Today homosexuals are all but establishment and there are new fringe dwellers seeking acceptance.

Some of the most moralistic persons I have met been nouvo –establishment types, a case of having :
‘once attains the upmost round.
He then unto the ladder turns his back,
Looks in the clouds, scorning the base degrees
By which he did ascend.’

Each era can cite current thinking/morality to justify its stand –smug in the belief they have the right balance between civil liberties & morality.

Bosk,
I stick by what I said-to divorce it from our hobby horse:
If you have an "exclusive" preference for chocolate ice-cream.
Can you do any thing else but "consistently" choose chocolate ice-cream?
(Perhaps the guy’s non-English ancestry is the explanation).

There is also an interesting comment from Richard Dawkins (The Extended Phenotype) which may have relevance:
"Homosexuality is of course, a problem for Darwinians only if there is a genetic component to the difference between homosexual & heterosexual individuals. While the evidence is controversial (Weinrich 1976), lets assume for the sake of argument that this is the case...Even if there are genes which, in today's environment, produce a homosexual phenotype, this does not mean that in another environment, say that of our Pleistocene ancestors , they would have the same phenotypic effect. A gene for homosexuality in our modern environment might have been a gene for something entirely different in the Pleistocene"

To All, Homo and Hetro. Please read this article and then come back here and tell me again why we should allow gay marriages.

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet7.html

Why can’t you be happy just living together? Why do you need to make a mockery out of marriage?

And as for Rex: “But at least most of us [hopefully] don't dwell on what heterosexuals are doing sexually, so why should we take any particular interest in what homosexual people may or may not be doing?”
To be blunt. I believe it is wrong and it is put in our face to much. I do not advertise my sexual acts to the world

Jane, I don't much like the Mardi Gras, the ads on public toilet walls nor do I personally find male homosexual acts at all appealing. I'd rather not have that stuff in my face either.

Discussion of allowing homosexual unions to have legal status does not seem to be about shoving homosexual sex acts in my face any more than my previous marriage was an attempt to exhibit my sex acts to the friends and family who gathered to celebrate the occasion. People were no doubt aware that sexual activity would take place but advertising that was not the intent of getting married.

Homosexuals are able to engage in sexual activity regardless of marital status (and as history shows regadless of the legality of their actions). What this is about is the impact that laws which stop them having a legally recognised union have on those who do wish to live as a couple.

If the author or the article you referenced is using survey results legitimately then very few homosexuals will take up this opportunity so you have little to fear.

Why should I support this - in part because it is just, in others ways for the same reasons that I support religous freedoms, the alternative is worse. While I suspect that monothiestic religious belief is not healthy or in the best interests of participants banning it seems to present a greater threat to the well being of society. As long as the practice is kept behind closed doors between consenting adults then it's not my business.

I might also note that I've yet to hear of a homosexual threatening me with eternal torment unless I change teams. I don't know of any homosexual schools set up with a clear goal of winning children to homosexuality. I'm not aware of homosexuals advocating to censor access to religious books for those who enjoy that kind of thing. I have never had a pair of homosexuals knock on my door on Saturday morning to convince me I should change orientation.

R0bert

Right Jane, you're on. I was loathe to visit that link you posted, solely because it contained the word "family". Past experience has taught me that most organisations which use the word "family" in their title are rabidly "Christian"* and rabidly anti-homosexual.

So, here I am coming back to tell you why gays marriages should be allowed.

Marriage is a civic democratic right. It is not religious. Yes, people get married in church, but they still have to sign a marriage licence. A couple could get married in a dozen churches, but their union would not become legally binding until they signed the licence.

Australia is a secular society. Church and state are separate. Regardless of how much the churches get their panties into a knot over this issue, from a religious standpoint it is none of their business. Their rights to protest gay marriage end at refusing to perform them, which is fine by me.

Australia has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as chartered by the UN. Article 26 states:

All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

On this basis alone, Australia as a society cannot allow the continued discrimination against homosexuals with regards to legal recognition of their relationships.

I personally don't care if the word "marriage" is used or not. If it will get the religious zealots to shut up, "civil union" is fine, or any other like phrase. This issue is not about religion, it is not about tradition (traditions change) - it is about fairness, equality and providing legal protection and obligation to all [consenting, human, adult] couples in a relationship.

* "Christian" is used to denote those who seem to consider themselves thus, then proceed to act in a way which is anything but.

Homosexuality is an irrational behaviour in that it cannot possibly serve the biological function of reproduction. The removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 by the American Psychological Association was not without controversy; and remains contentious today (http://www.narth.com/docs/consequences.html ). By and large, our society is built upon commonly accepted customs, traditions or practices, however unfair or silly they may seem to some people, yet these have evolved and become the accepted ways of how we function and work together as a species. For thousands of years the man-woman relationship has dominated, and has proved very stable and successful if the expansion of human population and technological advances are any measure to go by.

So why, in the name of fairness, which no one has yet defined, does a group of social misfits keep pushing to get their weird idea of relationships accepted by a society that is really not interested? Homosexual relationships are inherently more complicated than heterosexual ones, especially where children are involved, and must therefore have a higher probability of failure with associated psychological problems like depression. The mere fact that these people are demanding legal recognition is evidence that there are problems. When relationships are fine, people don’t need a court. This is yet another example of pandering to minority groups and individualism, which happens far too often in Western society and is a significant contributor to ongoing social decline, as seen in the prevalence of drug addiction, vandalism, theft, divorce and unsolicited violence.

To those who see my partner and I, who this year celebrate thirty wonderful years together, as misfits, perverts, paedophiles,sodomists and all the nasty discriptions you can come up with. Maybe you should take a look at yourselves, as you appear to not be aware of the people around you, you appear to be living an insulated life. Not wanting to accept that there are other people on this earth other than yourself. Who live life, even under daily challenges and just carry on, because they have each other, which you find abhorent. You don't pay our mortgage, you don't pay our grocerie bills, you don't pay anything for our being , but we do pay full government taxes, which contributes to "families"and the community. What we do not enjoy, to those who consider us "misfits", we do not have legal safeguards to our relationship even after thirty years of just living our lives together.
You can stick your marriage, we don't want it, all we want is respect and our moral legal rights.
We are Australians, but second class Australians and these two "Misfits" are going to fight. You may call us what ever you want to boost your ego, we are use to it. But you are no way going to deny the right of all those young gay men and women, to be whom they are! To have the same choices in life that you enjoy, at our expense.

Hi Kipp,

I am merely trying to show that there are as many reasons not to give homosexual relations the same legal status as normal ones, as there are reasons to grant them; but there seem to be people on your side of the debate who stubbornly refuse to acknowledge this. As much as you feel disrespected, so you must accept that other people feel that you do not respect the long established customs and traditions that they hold dear. I am married and I think it's great, though it will be a long time before I equal your impressive achievement. I apologise for any offense and I wish you success in getting whatever recognition you feel you deserve.

@Robg, I doubt you offended Kipp as he is decent enough to rise above you. You offend the Australian culture which is proud to be tollerant and caring. Your wit is lower than a common yobbo by about 120 degrees. Kipp is celebrating a fantastic achievement in commitment and love that has lasted 30 years. I am downright inspired to hear his story, against the odds. This is a brave couple, strong and detirmined. I don't understand it, but my understanding is irrelevant. I have no insecurities to fuss about.

My congratulations to you Kipp on your anniversary! God bless you! Such courage and commitment deserves praise and celebration and I think a few of you could learn a thing or two about good manners and decency in speaking to a good decent gentleman like Kipp.

Whether you call it civil union, de facto, whatever, when a couple of adult humans demonstrate the real thing, now that is bloody inspiring. Even if you don't understand or disagree with the concept, you have to give them credit, this is really a worthy achievement. They are not shoving their identities down your necks at all, some of you are shoving stupid hypotheticals down everyone else's necks, and some of these whacky prejudices are really offencive.

@the man who wants to marry his dog in the tombs of ancient Egypt, the other who keeps talking about the jungles of Africa, and the woman who obsesses about children, oh c'mon Aussies, you are trying to turn this into a circus! In such a stupid performance, one tip in acting. Never involve children or animals. You will always make a mockery of yourself. The issues of animals and children have no relevance to this subject. Again, point of order, this is about the status of a commitment between 2 consenting adults of the same gender. The issue is not about adoption, or the couples having children. To that other writer who needs help, leave the poor bloody dog alone, the pet is just trying to show effection. Does the RSPCA read this?

Maximus of course marriage is not only about oneself – it involves oneself and another person of the opposite sex. The Marriage Act 1961 doesn't say “your marriage is about children” it says marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. So, a man and a woman can get married, fertile or not. A man and a man (or a woman and a woman) can’t get legally get married in Australia – this is okay with me as long as a man and a man (or a woman and a woman or even a man and a woman who don’t believe in marriage) can sign up for a civil union where they have all the legal rights/responsibilities available for those who are married OR all individuals get legal rights based on their standing as individuals rather than based on what relationships they are in and in that case gay people don’t need a civil union because they already have all the rights/responsibilities they need.. I thought you would be a supporter of individual rights/responsibilities regardless of gender, sexuality etc.

Horus – while animals can communicate with each other and presumably have the consent thing worked out animals cannot express consent to have sex/get married to humans. Your statement “some animal owners would disagree” is itself evidence. Were animals capable of consent and expression you would say “some animals would disagree” and then be able to show evidence of animals asking for sex/marriage with humans. So, as Saintfletcher, puts it so well – never involve children or animals (that is – don’t have sex or marriage with children or animals – obviously children are sometimes the result of sex!).

Robg, what a lovely apology you make to Kipp, that’s great. Just a note about your arguments, “When relationships are fine, people don’t need a court.”, many marriages end up in the Family Court of Australia yet we don’t deny heterosexuals marriage because 1-in-3-marriages doesn’t work out.

Saintfletcher, to be pedantic it’s “affection” not “effection”.

Pedant, now you have got me confused - "obviously children are sometimes the result of sex!". So where do they come from the rest of the time? ;)

All jokes aside thanks for your thoughtful and reasoned contributions to this thread.

I find it rather sad that some are so determined to try and force others to live to their own standards regardless of the harm done when they are successful. It is also sad that some have so much trouble with a concept like consenting human adults (strange that it seems necessary necessary to add the word human in there), whilst there will be exceptions in most cases it is fairly easy to determine if someone is a consenting human adult by the laws of this land. Last time I checked sheep, dogs and children were not adult humans. Consent can be a more difficult issue but nothing in our current system overcomes the issues faced by those who are pressured into giving a consent they might not otherwise give.

Cheers
R0bert

Pendant:

It's actually 1 in 2 marriages. The divorce rate is currently hovering somewhere around 51%. So much for the sanctity...

R0bert,
"I find it rather sad that some are so determined to try and force others to live to their own standards ...with a concept like consenting human adults"
If this is really your guiding principle, why stop at homosexual unions.Surely we could find human adults who consent to group marriages ( M+M+M , W+W+W, M+W+W, W+M+M -mix & match-whatever takes your fancy)Or what about Brother+Sister, Father+Daughter combinations.
If consenting adults is the shibboleth, wouldn't the above also pass muster?

Pedant,
You indicate that the idea of consent is sacrosanct.
However we have seen;
The legal establishment willing to "modify" consent to accommodate lobby groups re rape & domestic violence. And we know unions/marriages initiated overseas, where consent requirements are different or non-existent are recognised.

saintfletcher
1) Don't take the dog analogy too seriously.
2) " this is about the status of a commitment between 2 consenting adults of the same gender. The issue is not about adoption, or the couples having children"
Do you really believe that this campaign will stop at civil unions?

You are right Horus, we can't take anything you say seriously at all. You make stupid statements that I wouldn't repeat to my Grandmother. Your ideas go to a level of perversity many of us never really considered. Have you looked for help, BTW? There are good doctors to help you with disturbing inclinations. Frued would not accept that "I was just joking" rubbish, you have a problem!

You deliberately toss the arguement into rediculous tangents, and will stop at nothing to put down gay relationships. Then your mind goes to places that don't belong in this forum.

In your reply to rObert, I should have predicted this in, now he mentions bloody incest. Christ! This is irrelevant to the civil union proposal between two consenting gay adults.

In your reply to Pedant, I only knew that sex abuse charges were changed by magistrates in "panic defence" plea's, when groups of poofter bashers and church group lobbied and ensured that their murderers got away with this sex crime. The accused claimed that after they raped the "poofter", they panicked, and had to kill him. Again, irrelavant to civil union.

In my own reply, the answer is yes. The Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby is only interested in civil union on this issue, and all those other stupid senarios are of no interest to these lobby groups. The hypothetical is nonsense. Pets, children, incest, furniture, in line for marriage is not going to happen, they are not even legal as relationships, nor should they be.

To those concerned, yes, civil union is the term to use, keep it away from the church. Both interests want their distance from each other.
Thanx Pedant, at 4.00am, I do typos sometimes: affect. This weary father gets woken up at all hours, and I sometimes visit while the baby sleeps. I'm just a straight dude that makes a million mistakes a day, especially trying to raise kids.

'Civil Union' is an interesting term, and helps define the issues. Married and de facto hetero couples have advantages over gay couples particularly when it comes to financial benefits and decisions over health / division of property and the like.

But here is where it gets interesting: Some mention has been made of brother / sister relationships in terms of incest: But if we take sex out of the equation, that is: have a brother and sister, or two brothers or two sisters adopting a domestic relationship that did not involve sex, but including sharing domestic chores, shared finances, even the possible adoption of children or the nurturing of their own children from previous relationships, why should these couples not be able to also enter into 'civil unions'.

There are hetero couples who whilst married have never consummated their relationship in a sexual way, or who haven't had sex in decades. They are, in the eyes of the law, just as married as another couple who are bonking their brains out every day and night. Sex does not make a union, so should sexuality?

May I suggest that any couple who wish to enter into a civil union be allowed to, so long as their behaviour does not contravene any other law. That is, if siblings wish to form a family, without sex, but with the privileges of marriage, then why not? The same goes for any other couple, straight or gay. The same could be said for polygamous relationships.

The peril of course is that with civil unions comes civil divorce / civil settlements and parenting issues. As an example, if a couple, of whatever persuasion, is raising the biological child of one of them, but both are acting as parents, what rights and responsibilities does the non-biological parent have?

If in a relationship one partner stays home and the other works, when no children are involved, and the relationship breaks down, who will get what? Will the stay at home persons contributions be taken into account or have they just been ‘kept’ by the working partner?

Re the idea of any couple being able to enter into civil unions, the idea of exclusivity immediately springs to mind. Marriage is meant to exclude other close / sexual relationships from being formed outside of the marriage. That is why adultery was considered to be a legal ground for divorce. Of course the law never stopped an adulterous incident from taking place, it just made it more difficult, and costly should the adulterers be found out. In some places adultery was also a capital offence, and is still punishable by imprisonment in some US States.

Laws against prostitution were, aside from being in sync with religious laws and teaching, intended to make sure that for anyone to enjoy sex they had to be married.

With the institution of no-fault divorce, and no fault financial and parenting settlement, so long as both sides get a fair share and the children’s best interests are dealt with by law, adultery has not been as much an issue to the law.

So what protection and value is there in civil unions / marriages anyway? Neither can be considered to be sacrosanct. Neither will be protected by the law by forcing participants who have entered into these relationships voluntarily and with informed consent from actually respecting the ‘conditions’ of the relationship.

Recent legal developments in Britain have meant that even if a couple, in that country, have barely moved in together after marriage when the relationship breaks up, then the person who brings less, in terms of finances and contributions to the relationship can walk out with a large chunk of the other persons assets.

There was the case of an English multi-millionaire who married a women of ordinary means. The relationship broke up after two years and the law awarded her 25% of his fortune, because of an expectation that by marrying this guy she would live in luxury for the rest of her life.

These decisions may have a flow on effect to this country and its legal system.

So, what protection can be put in place to maintain ‘civil unions’?

Hamlet, very well put. I'd being trying to think of appropriate wording for an answer to the incest question along the lines that you used. You have done a great job of it. You have covered off the public issue very well.

In regard to the sexual aspect of incest there seem to be two major issues which would concern me
- the genetic risks if children are conceived.
- the increased opportunity for consent not to be an informed free will consent but rather an engineered consent.

I also have a significant cultural bias against incest - not necessarily defensible apart from the previous items but something I have not had a need to question in depth.

As for the group civil unions thing I have not seen any research results to support the contention put by some that it is more harmfull to children than other arrangements which are currently supported and I suspect that it would be much healthier than a lot of single parenting. It's a difficult task to raise children on your own. I'm not sure what the welfare and tax implications of group civil unions are - that is really a different issue.

R0bert

@saintfletecher

1)
I asked:
"Do you really believe that this campaign will stop at civil unions?”

The answer I got was:
"IN MY OWN REPLY, the answer is yes. The Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby are only interested in civil union ON THIS ISSUE, and all those other stupid scenarios are of no interest to these lobby groups."

My conclusion:
You're hedging -your ideological masters haven’t told you yet

2)

As I said before, this is not wowsers against liberals
“Now all we are haggling about is the price”
(Or where we draw the line)
Saintfletcher, your howls of moral indignation at some of my suggested combinations would put to shame anything from the religious right

When Jon Faine on ABC today put forward the argument that once you legalised gay marriage you could not logically deny marriage for someone wanting to marry two people or even more on a segment of the Conversation Hour, the gay activist he was interviewing replied that he indeed saw no problem in three people or more forming a civil union of their own. In fact, he even knew of a gay threesome that shared a relationship.

So OK, one person says it is OK for polygamy. I am sure we will draw the line there. Wont we? And if you deny that threesome as a marriage then you are anti-polygamist and a terrible-terrible person, a conservative and do not understand that society has all types of people and relationships.......

Each and everyone of us, are who we are. We get up go to work, earn a dollar. Come home, and what ever the day was like. When we walk through that door, the burdens are left on the doormat.
We will put a meal together, watch some crap on telly, maybe do some laundry, or maybe read a chapter of that book, that always sends you to sleep. If our lives offend you, we do not apologise. Its our life and we are happy.

R0bert re ‘"obviously children are sometimes the result of sex!". So where do they come from the rest of the time? ;)’ yes it’s probably quite badly worded. Sorry about that! What I mean is, sometimes people have sex and conceive a child and sometimes people have sex and don’t conceive a child. Aside from artificial insemination, I guess.

Horus what do you mean by “The legal establishment willing to "modify" consent to accommodate lobby groups re rape & domestic violence.”?

I agree that there are unions/marriages initiated overseas, where consent requirements are different or non-existent are recognised. In my opinion, no-one should be forced to be married against their consent. This is different from someone who consents to an arranged marriage. Also in some countries overseas women are considered property and I think that is bad also.

My main objection to polygamy is hypocrisy (ie most male practitioners are happy to have several wives but would be aghast if one of their wives considered taking another husband) and the lack of consent to marriage in situations where the wives are very young. If for example a woman wanted to enter into a civil union with two men and they were all consenting adult humans then I fail to see the difficulty.

I support the idea that all individuals get should get legal rights and have welfare and be taxed based on their standing as individuals rather than based on what relationships they are in. Marriage would remain between a man and a woman. Parents would have equal rights/responsibilities for their children. Anyone who wished to could enter into a ‘Civil Union’ with anybody else and make the appropriate arrangements for the situations that Hamlet describes (more work for lawyers! Tee hee).

Pedant, thanks for another great post (and a good summary in the Mums off bums thread as well).

No need to be sorry for the wording, it tickled by funny bone and I try and do my part to keep some humor in these threads.

R0bert

Goodness, Horus certainly can babble on with pointless obfuscation. Legal recognition of same-sex relationships is about precisely that. No more, no less.

Not about animal fetishes. Nor multiple wives. Nor the sexual abuse of children. The vast majority of Australians would rightly view these irrelevant unlawful behaviours as flatly unnacceptable (all harm, no good).

Despite this, homorejectionists like Horus would have us all believe if we legally recognise same-sex relationships, we must legalise the aformentioned unlawful behaviours too. What patent nonsense.

Also contrary to the strident assertions of homorejectionists, same-sex relationship recognition does have a high level of popular support:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/younger-voters-support-samesex-unions/2006/06/19/1150701484555.html

To me, the key question is what do homosexual couples want out of gaining access to civil marriage?
I believe the answers to be the following:

* Automatic recognition of their 'next of kin' status for the purposes of property, inheritance, and medical incapacitation of their partner. Think about it - a person married for five minutes has more 'next of kin' influence at the bedside of a person in a coma than a person who has been in a defacto relationship for years.

* Public recognition and acceptance of their relationships, a 'life marker'. Think about the photos people have of their children around the house. They are often photos of when they were little, when they graduated high school and/or uni, and their wedding. Weddings mark when people publicly accept and rejoice in the happiness of another couple. How should the parents, family and friends of a person who happens to be homosexual be not allowed to celebrate the committment and happiness of a couple?

I simply do not see how giving access to this 'next of kin' status and a ceremony, to two adult and consenting members of society, can possibly in any way devalue the relationship between other adult and consenting members of society.

On the balance of probablities, it seems to me that we would be increasing the happiness of our soceity by allowing people to celebrate their love in public.

As I've stated previously,let the Gays have their union recognised by the state but not the same as the normal union of husband and wife known as marriage.The traditional marriage of man and woman is still the best way to raise children even with all our human foibles.

I don't believe that all homosexuals are inherantly born that way.For some it is a lifestyle choice.Paedophiles are created by the perversions of other paedophiles and this is not a lifestyle choice,but more about sexual imprinting on adolesence before they have a chance to come to terms with the complexities of their own emotions.We can change the sexual orientation of an individual at an early age and single sex couples do not on average, give a balanced view of the world.

How did we ever define opposite sex marriage? Science didnt define it, Christianity did. So it makes no sense to argue marriage on the basis of the ability to procreate. The ability to create life is irrelevant to recognition of love in society. So are we to continue to define law on the basis of Christianity? No! There was a humane convention that said people should have rights no matter what their religious beliefs are. So there are civil unions. And a civil union should permit all equality, i would think.
one person said that children brought up in traditional opposite sex marriages are less balanced parents than same-sex partners, this is quite an incorrect generalisation, where's the evidence? Maybe the guy brought up with two dads to live a healthy normal life had better balanced parents than the conventional opposite-sex parents who orphaned the guy next to him, but thats be an assumption too.
And then should we argue polygamous marriages to be recognised in society? Well if we accept that equality is just that equality then yes we should, as long as these acts dont explicitly harm society why not.
But then again equality is a concept for an ideal world