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.