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.