"Hasn’t the rainbow flag, at long last, swept across our collective consciousness and enlightened us all?"

Ah, no Lyn. Not every one would agree with those sentiments. Inequality laws have gone a long way towards protecting gay people and that's a good thing, but I believe it's more like the case of religious vilification laws and other legislation protecting the "rights" of minority groups. People may not necessarily agree with them, but are reluctant to disagree with those laws in case they themselves should be vilified. Eg: Mention any perceived animosity towards religion, race, or color in Australia and see how quickly you are branded a bigot, even if your comments are not intended that way. In short, people are scared to open their mouths, but that doesn't mean homophobia isn't alive and well.

Homosexuality in Australia evokes reactions of anything from mild amusement to outright hostility. It's an 'in-bred' thing often handed down from parents to offspring, especially amongst those who are of traditional British hereditary or are fundamentalists from whichever religion and that's something that can't be bred out of the Australian psyche whilst this practice of homophobia continues.

Personally, I believe ALL Australians should be protected against discrimination at all levels including equal rights. Some major legislation to this effect has been passed in recent years, yet much more needs to be done, however I wouldn't hold my breath while you wait for Howard, Abbott, Costello or their ilk to come on board!

Everyone - as a member of a democracy - should be offended by this.

It is on par with denying blacks the vote and denying women the vote - in my opinion. This is blatant descrimination and relegates homosexuals to the status of second class citizens. There is not ONE convincing argument in favour of denying homosexuals the right to marry (and yes, i said marry...not a civil union, which would just be descrimination by another name). It is pure and simple an attempt by religious groups to illegitimise homosexuality. So much for a separation of church and state.

So long as no-one is harmed in any way as a result (and with apologies to Voltaire), I say: "I may not agree with what a man (does) - but I will defend to the death his right to (do) it.”

There should be no excuse, in law or morality, for penalising or promoting disadvantage for any human beings who come and remain together, based on mutual love.

I have a gay cousin who is 'married' to his partner under UK law. They are both 'nice guys' and work in high levels of the legal profession. They contribute equally in their relationship and have made their wills in favour of one another. I have no difficulty with these things.

I also have a more distant cousin who is in a same sex relationship with another female. They have a daughter. I do have a difficulty with this. Their daughter is being brought up in a manner which is making it difficult for her to experience or have a normal relationship with the opposite sex. She has an early and unhealthy interest in all men and is, I believe, vulnerable.
What her parents do as consenting adults is fine but imposing their sexual preferences on a child or denying their child heterosexual experiences is entirely unacceptable.

Only 58 ? maybe we need more....

Its really quite simple.

MAN + WOMAN= CHILD.. reproduction of the species.

MAN + MAN or WOMAN+WOMAN = abnormal, dysfunctional, strange, not normal.

There can be no question that such relationships are not normal biologically. As such, these relationships must be denied legally the possibility to:

a) Marry.
b) Raise Children.
c) Have children by 'sneaky' means.

If men want to have sex with men.... and women with women.. ok fine.. do whatever you like, and sort it out with your Creator when you meet Him, but DONT' tell us that it is 'normal' and DON'T tell us it is 'ok' and DON'T tell us that we should just accept you as 'any other couple', because I won't.

I'll have compassion on you like I would for any person with a disability or a biological problem (such as being born with genitalia of both sexes) or..hormonal abnormalities.. etc, but compassion goes as far as acceptance, support, counsel, - NOT in trying to restructure society so CHILDREN become involved.

I have compassion for the paranoid Schitzoprenic who was almost violent toward me some time back, but I won't let it go beyond certain sensible limits. He WILL take his medication or be reported.

Same sex families are deviant... dangerous and doubtful. No compromise, and for those who seek to change the law to favor this.."No Prisoners"

BOAZ_David, what a truly offensive post. Unfortunately, while I would love to deride you as being out on some sort of loony fringe, I suspect you are in fact part of a very substantial minority who hold views identical to your own.

Your argument, which seems to you so self-evident, is based upon the fallacious premise that the purpose of relationships is reproduction. Following your logic, MAN + INFERTILE WOMAN or vice versa, should be an equal 'abomination', unable as it is to yield children.

The laws Allison is talking about, however, are not just laws about recognising gay "marriage". They're more practical than that. Explain to me, for instance, why the Judges Pensions Act should prevent Justice Kirby's long time partner from obtaining a pension if Justice Kirby dies. Explain to me why the same sex partner of a fallen serviceman or woman should not receive a pension. Explain to me why a gay couple should not be treated, for taxation purposes, in the same way as a straight couple. What, they should pay extra tax because they are gay?

As for children, BOAZ_David, would you rather children were brought up in a loving gay home, or a violent straight home? So, I'm NOT saying all straight families are violent. I *am* saying that what counts is the quality - not the gender - of the parenting.

Speak for yourself, BOAZ_David, but don't presume to speak for me. I share neither your intolerance nor your fear.

David Boaz as a gay man in a committed and loving relationship, of 31 years.

Do you really consider we should be treated as first class Australian tax payers and second class Australian citizens.

Do you believe that our assets accrued, in our relationship should not be protected.

Do you think that it is right, that our respective superanuation and pension, should be denied to either of us, when one of us dies.

Do you find it acceptable, that if either of us is seriously hospitalised, we be denied access to each other or involvement in what treatment is prescribed.

Do you condemn hetrosexuals couples, who cannot procreate, or choose not to have children.

You type yourself as a "christian", though in comparison to our christian belief parents, you appear to be a selective "christian". Which is contradictory to the beliefs of "The Man", whom you say you follow.

My posting was in response to David Boaz. To whose pension and benefits we pay our full rate taxes!

It's not often I say this, but I wish the Democrats every success with this effort.

In the 21st century it's outrageous that a section of the community should be discriminated against in this way.

Individuals are entitled to their views about homosexuality (even weird ones like Boaz_david).

But equality of citizens before the law should be fundamental in a modern liberal democracy.

I witnessed the trauma and deep unhappiness of a deeply devoted same sex couple who had been together for over forty years. One had had a stroke, and being hospitalised his family were allowed by his side, but his partner was not. The family denied his partner
access. This was extremely cruel to both of them. On release of the stroke-victim, his partner devoted all his time and love to care for him - the family never even visited.

I believe in a civil service for both same sex and heterosexual couples to be married. As in places in Europe, a civil service precedes the religious service, and to all intents and purposes, the former is the legally binding contract.

Often the long-time love shared between same sex couples, shows heterosexual couples much to be desired. If truth be told, sex is not necessarily part of a long successful
marriage.

Also, the divorce rate indicates that heterosexual marriages are far from necessarily successful, despite the solemn oath "to death do us part". Deeply religious people would see a divorce after such an oath, and often serial marriages, surely deeply sinful.

On the purely pragmatic issue of pensions, unemployment benefits, etc. same sex couples would be in the same category as married couples, and indeed defacto couples, and thus save monies from the public purse.

I don't believe in any law that discriminates against others in society.

I witnessed the trauma and deep unhappiness of a deeply devoted same sex couple who had been together for over forty years. One had had a stroke, and being hospitalised his family were allowed by his side, but his partner was not. The family denied his partner access. This was extremely cruel to both of them. On release of the stroke-victim, his partner devoted all his time and love to care for him - the family never even visited.

I believe in a civil marriage service for both same sex and heterosexual couples. In places in Europe, a civil service precedes the religious service, and to all intents and purposes, the former is the legally binding contract. Some religious groups bless same sex couples, others don't.

Often the long-time love shared between same sex couples, shows heterosexual couples much to be desired. If truth be told, sex is not necessarily part of a long successful marriage.

Also, the divorce rate indicates that heterosexual marriages are far from necessarily successful, despite the solemn oath "to death do us part". Deeply religious people would see a divorce after such an oath, and often serial marriages, surely deeply sinful.

On the purely pragmatic issue of pensions, unemployment benefits, etc. same sex couples would be in the same category as married couples, and indeed defacto couples, and thus save monies from the public purse.
Posted by Danielle, Wednesday, 8 August 2007 5:13:56 PM

My partner and I have been waiting years for the opportunity for gay men to marry. A number of countries take the ethical position that equal human rights should apply to all their citizens. Spain passed a law allowing gay marriage and removing discrimination despite the vehement opposition of the Catholic Church in a Catholic country. That takes political leadership and passionate belief in the principle of separating church from state.

South Africa similarly enshrined basic human rights equality into their constitution thanks to the leadership of Nelson Mandela and the instrumental role of imprisoned gay activist, Simon Nkole. Consequently, South Africa has become the first African country to recognise same-gender unions.

In the United States, a candidate's attitude against gay marriage is one of the key litmus tests that was put to 2008 Republican Presidential hopefuls to help guage how attractive they are to the religious right.

In several Islamasist countries, gays and lesbians face death, torture and persecution by living their lives honestly, true to themselves in loving relationships. Why? Because Religious Law (written around 700AD) = State Law.

Howard seeks to play politics with our lives, denying us equal treatment to look good to rigid thinking, religious conservatives at home and abroad. Howard brought (selective) religious sanctions (written decades BC) into Australian law thanks to the complicity of Beasley. Thank God for the outspoken positions of the Democrats and Greens.

Gays and lesbians are a minority group that Howard uses as part of his religious wedge politics. It's the politics of a mean and tricky politician, great at playing the marginal seats, a master at playing on emotions and ignorance, appealing to Christian, Jewish and possible Muslim conservatives.

In the 2007 federal election, will these plays be enough to save Howard from the judgement from the overwhelming majority of Australians who believe in a fair go for all?

When will we have leaders in Australia who will make laws that make us all feel proud to be Australian, focus on the real challenges facing us and motivate everyone to give their best to this wonderful sun-burnt country.

BOAZ_David. I agree and I believe if Homosexuals want us to respect them they should have the decency to respect us too! This push for homosexuals to present themselves and 'the same' as 'hetrosexuals' is draining to the extreme and a terrible example to be set for the kids.

I strongly believe that marriage is between a man and a woman - period......

Wow - here's where my conservative religious background meets my small 'l' liberalism.
I do not believe that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality - but I do not support discrimination for its own sake either.
If there is no compelling reason for isolating judge's entitlements to their lawful spouses I have no problem with Kirby J's partner receiving his entitlements. The same goes for the fifty-seven pieces of legislation which purportedly discriminate against homosexual couples - unless there is some aspect of the right/entitlement which is distinct/peculiar to heterosexual couples then I see no reason to discriminate.
If the right/benefit/entitlement accrues by virtue of one partner's work/effort etc then it should be capable of being assigned to whomever that person wishes - male/female or anything else I suppose.
I would draw the line, however, where it meets the rights of other people and particularly the rights of minors. This is (to a large extent) an argument for another day but I believe children are best served - where possible - by loving fathers AND mothers (I know, I know - don't tell me about the bad hetero parents and loving gay ones - I told you this ain't an easy topic for me).
I also wouldn't extend the argument to marriage. Marriage is a peculiar creature that, by definition (at least to me) must be exclusively between a man and a woman. If gay couples want some form of commitment recognised by the State (not exactly sure why they would - perhaps that's something someone could enlighten me on) it wouldn't be a 'marriage' IMHO.
Ok - let the cries of bigotry begin.

There are many good reasons to extend equal relationship rights to same-sex couples.

1) Equality and the fair go are basic Australian principles. Most of us believe equal love deserves equal rights.

2) All healthy, adult relationships fare better with the support and recognition of the wider community. Relationships should be celebrated and valued for the benefits they bring to couples, families and communities: eg. happiness, stability, finances, health benefits.

3) Relationship recognition will give legal security to same-sex couples who are already raising children. Children shouldn't be punished because the Government doesn't approve of their parents.

4) Australia is falling further behind other Western democracies in the recognition of gay couples. At least five countries allow gay marriage (South Africa, Spain, Canada, Netherlands, Belgium, Massachusetts USA), and about 30 regions of the world allow civil unions. Australia doesn't even allow equal de facto rights for same-sex couples.

5) A recent Galaxy poll found that 71% of Australians support de facto rights for gays, and 57% support gay marriage. As Australians move forward, the politicians become increasingly out-of-touch.

For these reasons, thousands of Australians will be participating in events nationwide this weekend calling for relationship recognition.

More info:
http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/nda.htm

Anthony Marinac implies that children raised in a loving 'same sex home' will not be disadvantaged. Big call Anthony! I think they will be utterly disadvantaged, as are children raised in dysfunctional homes with a Father and a Mother. The question is do we really want to allow even more children to be disadvantaged? The list for adverse consequences on the development of a child are seemingly endless, given what we know about the effects of nurture - love is simply not enough!

JSMill,

I'm not going to call you a bigot but I do have a question, is it purely semantics that prevents you from supporting gay marriage? If it was called something else but carried the same weight under law would you support it?

Homosexual couples should have the exact same rights as heterosexual couples.
Homosexuality is natural; otherwise it wouldn’t occur in nature. About 10% of animals are homosexual, and I think it’s about the same figure for humans.
Even if it wasn’t ‘natural’ I don’t see a problem with it. Why would I be concerned with someone else’s sexuality?

Dangerous? I wonder why homosexuality puts you in danger, BD. Do you fall over when a man blows you a kiss?

In the Netherlands, homosexual couples have the exact same rights as heterosexual couples including adoption and lesbians have access to IVF.
I think that it is a wonderful idea and fully support it.

I agree with Anthonymarinac on this: it’s the stability and love that count, not the sex of the parents.
At least all homosexual couples are totally motivated when they decide to start a family. We can’t always say the same about heterosexual couples who may fall accidentally pregnant or have babies because it’s the thing they’re expected to do. Not saying that this is wrong, but they don’t have the moral upper hand over homosexual couples who choose to have a family.

I do understand why communicat worries about this child, but some children of heterosexual couples also have early interest in the opposite sex.

My mother (in Amsterdam) lives in a street with several homosexual couples with children, who seem very happy, balanced, have good results at school or uni and normal relationships with friends, they behave no different than the children of heterosexual couples.

My children are free to be who they are; both I and my husband would be fine with it if they would turn out gay.
I wonder, would Jolanda or BD reject their own children if they’d come to you one day and tell you that they’re gay?
Even if they’re in a heterosexual relationship now, some people do not find out till later in life that they have an interest in the same sex.
What would you do when that happens?

Celivia. I have 4 children. 2 boys and 2 girls. I have a son who is 9 yeard old and already being referred to as gay by many only because he is kind, sensitive, caring and wont play football or any rough games. Society pushes our sensitive boys to become gay.....it seems that if these kindly natured boys want to be accepted in a group they have to become gay otherwise their life is just filled with bullying and harrassment.

If any of my children became gay I would say to them the same thing my parents said to me. That I would love them unconditionally but when they were in my house I would ask them to show respect and take into consideration my views and feelings. I don't particularly want to see them being affectionate or physical in my home. What they do in their own home is their business but I would still not support gay people being 'married". They want to live together fine, they want to pretend they are 'the same' as a married couple fine. But at the end of the day they are NOT THE SAME as a married couple - they are two men/women. They should have the decency to acknowledge that and to respect how it makes hetrosexual couples feel. Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman - period.

Coraliz,

That's almost but not quite what I said.

It may well be that sociology can show that a good, loving heterosexual relationship is the most ideal form of family for raising children. I don't know. My point was more along the following lines:

1. Heterosexual parenting couples span a wide spectrum, from excellent to abysmal.

2. Homosexual parenting couples do (and, in increasing numbers, will) span a wide spectrum, from excellent to abysmal.

3. Therefore, some homosexual couples will provide better parenting than some heterosexual couples.

4. Therefore, the key factor to consider is not whether the parenting couple is heterosexual or homosexual; rather, it is whether the parenting couple is closer to the "excellent" or the "abysmal" end of the scale.

To individualise, a child who has excellent heterosexual parents is better off than a child who has poor (or even average) homosexual parents. Similarly, however, a child who has excellent homosexual parents is better off than a child who has poor or average heterosexual parents.

The questions which matter are not "are my parents gay" but rather "do my parents love me?" "do my parents enrich me and help me grow?" "do my parents have the means to provide for me?" and "do my parents love one another".

Is that a bit clearer?

Anthony

Jolanda,

Why should gay and lesbian couples "be decent" about it if hetero couples can't be?

You obviously have issues with homosexuality, which is getting in the way of you seeing gay and lesbian couples as human beings and as such due the same respect as heterosexuals.

Whether you call it marriage or something else, why shouldn't two people who love each other be able to commit to one another and be recognised under the law?

When did Massachusetts become a "country"?

Jolanda, I’m glad that you would, at least partly, accept your children if they turn out to be homosexual; there is nothing more sad than parents rejecting their own children. Isn’t their child’s happiness the most important thing?
As long as you know that your childrens’ sexuality is a big part of them.

Hmmmm....perhaps heterosexuals should have the ‘decency’ to acknowledge that a same sex relationship are as valueable as a heterosexual relationship and they should have the right to have this recognised.

Marriage does not have to be a union between a man and a woman; the definiton can be revised as has happened in several countries. Times change, the zeitgeist moves on, and Australia is lagging behind.

I am all for homosexual people having the freedom to behave in the same way as heterosexual people do inside our communities and in society generally.
If heterosexual people kiss in the street, why should homosexual people not be able to do the same? They have nothing to be ashamed of, they have nothing to hide.
It should be widely accepted that they hold hands, hug, kiss like any heterosexual couple without having fear of violence by homophobics.
Perhaps that’s what BD means with ‘dangerous’: that homosexual people get bashed just because of their sexuality.

I think it is important that homosexual people get full support of the heterosexual community. They are in such minority that the government ignores their needs and wishes. They need our help and more people need to speak out against such form of discrimination.

Both the Bible and Koran are homophobic and it is therefore admirable that some of the Christian denominations have accepted homosexuality despite what the Bible says.
I don’t fully understand religious homophobes- in their view, did God not create people including homosexual people? Did God make a mistake or mess things up? What’s the full story?

Both major political parties oppose change to the Marriage Act. Given the nature of politics, it is reasonable to draw the conclusion that they believe a majority of the electorate is opposed to it. This might be at odds with the Galaxy poll, but pollsters are often wrong.

By definition, marriage is restricted by governments world-wide for the coupling of one man and one woman. This is true regardless of the secular or religious orientation of those respective governments and is only recent (and rare) that a government has broken ranks.

'Discrimination' is inherent to decision-making and affirmative action policies are a good example of where discrimination is regarded as positive. In deciding (say) that a person has to be a certain age to marry a Government is discriminating. All decision-making involves discrimination of some nature. Although alleged discrimination or individual human rights might be the stimulus for suggesting change, it is not necessarily a justification for change.

There are many rights and entitlements that attach to marriage and I would suspect that the Democrats' estimate of 58 Acts that impact on marriage could be an underestimate, because our concept of marriage involving one man and one woman is woven through all areas of our culture and regulations.

The change proposed by the Democrats is radical and far-reaching. The effects down the track can only be speculated upon. From its long history people already know what marriage is about and they need to know up-front the practical effects of any change. How will it affect parenting and children? Will school curriculums need to be changed? What about textbooks? Will use of the words 'mother' and father be seen as discriminatory and need to be phased out? What are the individual and public costs of same sex marriage? What about the Family Law Act and administration of family law? Do all homosexuals agree with extending the coverage of Family Law to their relationships or does the change only suit an elite?

The ball is in the Democrats' court to identify and resolve the practical questions now not later.

Jolanda: "They should have the decency to acknowledge that and to respect how it makes hetrosexual couples feel."

I'm half of a heterosexual couple, and we don't feel at all threatened by homosexual people. You don't speak for us.

"Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman - period."

Nonsense. It's a legal contract, nothing sacred about it.

As for Boazy's homophobic rant above - more nonsense from OLO's most prolific bigot.

Mr Howard is right in that every child deserves both a mum and a dad. He also knows that the practice of sodomy is extremely unhealthy and ends in many diseases (just check out our hospitals). No wonder the Democrats have become so irrelevant. Promoting this lifestyle through legislation does our society no benefit. A small minority who practice this lifestyle might benefit but society pays in the end. We should be funding programs to help people become free from this lifestyle rather than encouraging it.

Following Mr Howard's support for the Marriage Act as it presently stands, the co-convenor of the Gay and Lesbian Lobby Group, Somali Cerise, was quoted in the SMH as saying:

"Marriage is not something that a lot of gay and lesbian people want but the fact that we don't have the choice if we want it is the problem."

It is easy to understand why many homosexuals would prefer to retain the more bohemian and flexible lifestyles they enjoy outside of the straitjacket of the government designed and operated marriage and Family Law system.

Somali Cerise's assessment "Marriage is not something that a lot of gay and lesbian people want" begs the question as to just who is driving the change and why. Of course the usual suspects could be the intellectual elite who are into social engineering and know what is best for others.

Why risk uncontrolled and unknown outcomes changing an institution that is claimed to be already under threat when there could be other alternatives to address the needs of the small number (of the already small number) of homosexuals who want their relationships to be regulated by the Family Law Act?

Come to think of it, why invade the privacy of homosexual relationships and force all to be regulated for the few, especially when there could be other alternatives to achieve what they want from marriage?

It is not just same sex marriage that is being proposed for government regulation, it includes de facto arrangements too.

Have the Democrats ever consulted with homosexuals? When, how and what was the outcome?

Senator Allison I wish the Democrats every success in getting equal rights for same sex couples.

Religious types tell us that marriage is about joining a man and woman together to produce children. Until the 1970s children who were born out of wedlock had ILLEGITIMATE scrawled in red ink across their birth certificate - that doesn't happen now. That's not always been the case - in English and Australian history where if you didn't have property you didn't get married.

Currently in Australia a large proportion of women, approaching 30%, will never have children. About 10% of couples are infertile.

The nuclear family of mum, dad and kids is largely a fiction with less than half the households fitting into this category.

I live in an area with many gays and often the teenage children prefer to live with dad.

Living in a sole parent household or living near the poverty line has a greater impact on a child's health, educational outcomes and presumably life outcomes.

James Purser
Although there's a part of me that wants to answer your question with a simple affirmative I just can't.
There is certainly a part of me that wants to say - call it anything else and give them the same rights and no problems...
I just can't quite go that far.
The problem I have is that when the State (and let's make this point clear - notwithstanding the religious background, marriage nowadays is a social compact governed by the State, not the Church) sanctions and approves something - it also endorses it. I'm not ready to go that far.
As supporive as I am of any loving, non-abusive, consensual relationship between adults I cannot quite get to the stage where I can view a homosexual relationship as equivalent to and as valid as a hetero one. There is something about a traditional family unit (with or without children) that seems preferrable. Of course, giving same sex unions equal rights to everything would necessarily encompass adoption/fostering/IVF etc - which, as it involves children, I have already said I can't support.
However, I repeat that most other entitlements that have no good reason for discrimination should be available to same-sex partners.
I know - I'm homophobic - sigh... I try so hard.
;-)

For goodness sake, what real impact does this have on you as a person in your day to day existence and your own relationships and your connection with your community? Think about it, without all the religious and political guff that is being sprouted by both sides of the argument if that's possible, just look at the issues with pure logic.

How do hetero people personally benefit/ not benefit of same sex people are married? Why does what other people in your community do in their own homes mean so much to you? Why should some people not be given a "fair go" in society, and what other groups should we not be giving a "fair go" to while we are at it? People like me for instance, married and childless? Oh, sorry, already pay more tax than people with children, well other groups then. What (besides the pensions/ health access etc) is really going to fundamentally shift society for the worse because we recognise that two people are "married"- which can I add is a relatively modern institution- or not.

Love doesn't have a gender, it is not male or female, it is the description and outward manifestation of a very deep connection between people. Why can't we celebrate and recognise this deep and can I say fundamental connection between people who are happy, and leave it at that?

The bill is about changing the laws that discriminate against same sex couples. The laws cover marriage, superannuation, pension entitlements etc. Although I referred to marriage I was being lazy because the more pernicious effects of these laws discriminate against adults in terms of superannuation, pensions, property etc.

When you have lived with someone and supported them emotionally, financially and made their life more pleasant for 40+ years why shouldn't you expect to share their pension, decide their medical future when they are incapacitated?

I suspect these laws that discriminate against same sex relationships also discriminate against single adults in long term relationships.

What is fair about a woman marrying a man with a good super scheme and a heart condition a month before he dies and being able to collect his superannuation and have more entitlement to his assets than his adult children?

Aren't you being perverted for judging a person by their performance in the bedroom?

J S Mill, glad you’ve dropped in here.

Pushing up daisies for the last 144 years seems to have dulled your memory. For example, you seem to have forgotten that you invented the harm principle, which holds that an individual has the right to behave as he likes, so long as his behaviour doesn’t harm others.

You specifically excluded children from the harm principle, but only directly, not indirectly (i.e. it’s OK to tell a child what to do because it is incapable; it’s not OK to tell an adult how to behave with a child, unless the adult’s behaviour can be shown to be harming the child). As a result, stating as you do that same-sex couples should be denied parenting rights defies some of your most deeply held principles.

You also argued that we should act to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Recent survey statistics show that the greatest number of people support equal rights for same-sex couples.

I acknowledge your honesty when you say, "I'm not ready to go that far." The visceral response is widespread, but it is invariably solved by getting to know some same-sex couples and seeing that their relationships are no less real, loving and supportive as the marriages you are comparing them to.

Go back to your basic principles, J S Mill, and remember that it’s not about you, and how far you can or cannot go. It’s about the lives of worthy law-abiding human beings, against whom, by your lights, unequal treatment cannot be justified.

Actually, I'm OK with JS Mill's views (the contemporary one that is - though i have no real problems with the historical one either!).

I think a lot of people have some sort of discomfort when it comes to gay people and gay relationships. That's only normal, given that society until recently has stigamtised homosexuality so badly. Even people of good will, can still be forgiven for having misgivings or concerns or discomfort.

The real question is what one does as a result. One can respond to those misgivings by giving in to them and allowing them to become bigotry; or one can respond to them by accepting them and yet behaving in the most ethical manner possible.

To give an analogy, I personally feel uncomfortable talking to or dealing with people with Downs Syndrome. It kind of creeps me out. No, I am not proud of that. And I choose to respond to that discomfort by accepting it, but then doing my utmost to treat the person as I would any other. I try not to let my discomfort influence my conduct.

I think Mills deserves full marks for honesty. But I fail to be persuaded by the argument that "gay people should not be able to marry because it makes some straight people uncomfortable". Just not a strong enough case.

Anthony

JS Mill,

None of us are perfect, but the fact that you recognise that you have an issue speaks volumes for your character. We all have faults and its our ability to recognise them for what they are that defines us.

I understand your concerns, and while I may not agree with them, I am more than happy to sit down with you and have a chat.

Great article, Lynne. I wish your bill every success, but won't hold my breath.
As to the supposedly vexed area of gay people parenting - there is, of course, nothing new about that. My husband and his 3 siblings were raised by their gay father. He wasn't quite out to the world (this was the 50s and 60s) but he was out to his kids. He had lived, like many gays of that period, a lie and married my husband's mother partly as a disguise ( he was high up in the armed forces). The shock and stress of the discovery of her husband's gayness quite possibly contributed to her very early death.
He was not a good person or a good father, but that had absolutely nothing to do with his gayness -indeed, it may have had something to do with the need he felt for deceit. The interesting thing is that none of his children (3 boys and a girl) have grown up to be gay.
Actually, I think the best and bravest thing he did for his kids was not keep his sexual orientation a secret from them, after all, as a wise person once said to me; "You are only as sick as your biggest secret." It showed great respect and also allowed them to have a real relationship with their real father - however flawed - rather than a relationship with a socially acceptable construct. This does not, of course, excuse the tragedy of his wife's misery and despair.

ena

The problem was probably more the expectation that people were seen as being more stable if married and it favoured advancement.

Even if same sex marriage had been available his 'biggest lie' would still have been marrying to get ahead. His partner might still have died earlier if he (the partner) had not taken responsibility for his own life.

It is more likely that had homosexuality been legal and accepted and had he not been so ambitious, he would never had married at all. This is because few homosexuals would choose same sex marriage even if it was available (see earlier quote from Somali Cerise, co-convenor of the Gay and Lesbian Lobby Group).

A big concern with the push by some for same sex marriage is that whilst it might suit a small number of homosexuals, it could well act against the interests of most whose relationships would also be subject to government regulation. There would be no opting out of the universal coverage of the Family Law Act.

An immediate effect of Family Law on the free flowing de facto arrangements of many gays would be delays to obtain resolution, compulsory counselling and high cost when things don't work out. At present there is the possibility of a broader range of relationships and arrangements (and quick splits) made possible by lack of Family Law intervention.

To be blunt, how many gays really want their relationships to be regulated like heterosexuals, where splits involve compulsory counselling, big lawyer fees and long waiting times for resolution?

When did the Democrats do a poll of gays to see how many were in favour of this radical change to regulate their relationships and domestic affairs?

I agree with much of what you say, Cornflower.
But why should it be up to heterosexuals to tell homosexuals how they may be allowed to express their love for one another?
If only a few want to be legally married, why should that few be prevented?
Why are some heterosexuals so insecure about their own relationships that they feel their marriages will be somehow undermined if gays are allowed to ceremonially and legally declare their partnership?

ena

I do not know what the solution is but the ramifications of same sex marriage could have more downside than upside for gays and their lifestyles. Who wants the lack of trust and argy bargy that goes on with heterosexual divorce. Maybe same sex marriage is more relevant where large assets are concerned, but there again there are other solutions and 'marriage' doesn't always crystallise desired outcomes.

I'd just say to gays be careful what you wish for.

Men and women alike now spend more time as sexually mature adults outside of marriage than ever before, and some number of them live together in unreal or mock marriages of one kind or another. The social status of homosexuals is no better and no worse than that of anyone else who lives in an unmarried state.

What do I as a taxpayer owe to gay people’s lives or relationships or needs? Well the truth is many people have many needs that are not provided for by law, by government, or by society at large and for good reason.

To my homosexual friend I say if a lifelong monogamous relationship is what you want I wish you that happiness. But as our lives as citizens are concerned the durability of your relationship and its economic incentives/disincentives are matters of complete indifference. There are economic disincentives to hangliding, or raising pedigree poodles. In choosing to conduct your life as you have every right to do, you have stepped out of the area of shared social concern. Marriage is how the world exists, how you as a homosexual and myself came to be, how we are connected backward in time, through the generations.

Allison doesn't mention its utterly logical for polygamy or polyamory rights to follow gay rights. After all, if traditional marriage is defined as the union of (1) two people of (2) opposite sex, and if, as advocates of gay marriage insist, the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one’s autonomous choices in love, then the first requirement–the number restriction (two and only two)–is a similarly arbitrary, discriminatory denial of individual choice.

Posit a union of, say, three or four gay women all deeply devoted to each other. If two men or two women deserve the same privileges as married couples on what grounds would society reject these three or four their claims for all kinds of protections and privileges ordinarily accorded to marriage?

What about the ‘love’ of a man for an adolescent boy – a brother for his sister?

That’s a lot of falsehoods and fallacies crammed into 350 words, Martin. In reverse order:

1. The old trick of conflating homosexuality with pedophilia has been soundly discredited. It’s a straw man fallacy, and because it attempts to associate law-abiding citizens with universally-condemned criminal behaviour, it is one of the most offensive “arguments” fired at same-sex attracted people: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html

2. Lynn Allison’s article is about same-sex couples, not polygamous relationships of various gender combinations. Associating polygamy with recognition of the rights of same-sex couples is a classic instance of the slippery slope fallacy: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html

3. It may be acceptable to claim that heterosexual marriage is a common default relationship (“Marriage is how the world exists”) but extrapolating from this that other relationship models are unacceptable, unworthy or even less valued, is an example of a sweeping generalisation, the fallacy of accident: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/accident.html

However the worst and most insidious statements here are those based on lies:

(a) “The social status of homosexuals is no better and no worse than that of anyone else who lives in an unmarried state.”

Homosexuals’ social status is considerably worse, because we are specifically denied access to marriage. When we have equal rights, then it may be possible to argue that we also have equal social status. Until then, this statement is a blatant falsehood.

(b) “In choosing to conduct your life as you have every right to do, you have stepped out of the area of shared social concern.” Granted, there are a few homosexuals who say they chose to express their sexuality with same-sex partners. However by far the majority don’t experience it as a choice, any more than heterosexuals claim that they chose heterosexuality. Importantly, the American Psychological Association, with the backing of years of research and clinical experience, states unequivocally that sexuality is not a choice: http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html#choice

Same-sex attracted people have not stepped out of any areas of shared social concern. We are placed there by people who wish to disadvantage us.

These same people show little respect for truth or logic when seeking to maintain that disadvantage.

(1)Where did I equate homosexuality with pederasty?

(2)Slippery slope? These signatories http://www.beyondmarriage.org/signatories.html to this statement http://www.beyondmarriage.org/ disagree with you. They believe its a valid argument! In their statement, they advocate a "new vision for securing governmental and private institutional recognition of diverse kinds of partnerships, households, kinship relationships and families." This new vision, they hope, will move the nation "beyond the narrow confines of marriage politics" as they exist today.

(3)Our entire civilization is unanimous that homosexual unions are less valuable for the reasons given - fertility, generation and the protection of female sexuality. To repeat, our legal system’s protection for families is evidence of that unanimity.

(a)Those with a history of same sex attraction aren’t denied the right to marry and people who thought they were gay get married and have children a hundred times more often than we are told.

Alternatively, “we hear virtually nothing about this today, but historically one of the basic ways of dealing with same-sex attraction has been sublimation--not repression, sublimation. The three most common forms of gold into which this base metal was transformed have been deep abiding friendship, great art, and personal sanctity. All three of these options are still open to everyone.” Eve Tushnet (lesbian)

Sexual expression like everything else must be made subject to the will, I wouldn’t if I were you swallow the gay lobby line that sexuality is “identity and destiny”.

(b)As for the APA it removed homosexuality from its official listing of mental illnesses in its DSM of Psychiatric disorders until further research could be done. Which hasn’t occurred. This psychiatrist http://www.narth.com/docs/spitzer2.html was "the" instrumental figure in the decision doesn’t believe in the gay lobby’s sexual determinism.
If social pressures forced psychiatrists to label homosexuality an illness until 1973 are they less influenced by societal pressures today?

Marriage should be privileged and we should delight in that, not feel resentful of those in heterosexual marriages. Marriage has enough trouble already (mainly from heterosexuals) without everyman and his dog (almost literally) trying to empty it of meaning.

(1) The feigned innocence is very cute. What was “What about the ‘love’ of a man for an adolescent boy” if not a reference to pedophilia?

(2) Just carry that line of argument forward a few steps to see how absurd it is. A few people believe an argument is valid, therefore it must be a valid argument.

(3) Another lie. Our entire civilisation is not unanimous that homosexual unions are less valuable.

(a) In Australia, same-sex attracted people are denied the right to marry their lifetime partner.

(b) Robert Spitzer has stated many times that his research has been misrepresented by NARTH http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/15/AR2005081501022_pf.html You are aware of this, Martin, because it has been pointed out to you before http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4664#49865

I begin to wonder why you continue to propagate this lie.

It should be noted here that Lynn Allison’s article wasn’t about marriage, it was about removal of the 58 (soon to be 59) instances of federal discrimination against same-sex couples.

Martin, you say, “Sexual expression like everything else must be made subject to the will.” Putting aside the problems with this claim, the discussion here is not about sex, it’s about the rights of a minority – the only minority in this country which is specifically denied a right.

Coming out of their self imposed redundancy and in an attempt to outbid the Greens, I dare the Senator to do what should be done: get rid of the affirmative action for heterosexual couples!

Most of the above posts seem to agree with Billie: "The bill is about changing the laws that discriminate against same sex couples."

Sorry, folks, but this bill is about a paradigm shift away from the nuclear family as the basis of civilisation. De facto recognition of relationships have already seriously undermined this State sponsored (and Church.culturally endorsed) policy. So the extension to other 'family' models means that the policy position has shifted from supporting families to supporting just about everyone.

Many modern couples figure why bother entering into a social and legal contract with society? I say, if we no longer support the model, rather than extending benefits beyond the original intention - ie. to support non-waged spouses and children - lets scrap the benefits, given the new circumstances society and the economy presents.

The best way to remove discrimination is to bring everyone to the level playing filed of a single person with no repsonsibility for children.

Try that Senator - good luck!

As a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” I first like to point out;
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
.
Mr. HIGGINS.
I do not see, speaking in ordinary language, how the insertion of such words could possibly lead to the interpretation that this is necessarily a Christian country and not otherwise, because the words "relying upon the blessing of Almighty God" could be subscribed to not only by Roman Catholics and Protestants, but also by Jews, Gentiles, and even by Mahomedans. The words are most universal, and are not necessarily applicable only to Christians.
.
My views are not religious based and neither should be the Federal Parliament.
.
Having this out of the way now could my wife complain that she being retired isn’t getting the same income as you do as a Senator, is that discriminatory also? Obviously not, as-there-are-different-circumstances-that-are-applicable.
.
People entering in a gay relationship do so knowing that between themselves they never can conceive a child. Heterosexual ordinary can (apart of those who due to medical problems cannot) and this is the difference why the constitution in Subsection 51(xxii) refers to “paternal rights” which was in regard of a divorce between a heterosexual couple.
.
The Constitution was based upon a heterosexual relationship being a marriage. As a Senator I view you should at the very least then support the constitution in that regard as after all aren’t you being paid being a Senator, which was it not for the Constitution you would not have been?
.
I view that a street cleaner is very important to keep people healthy but even if they work the same hours as a doctor they are unlikely going to get the same pay. Is this unfair? Is this discrimination?
.
It might be easy to scream “discrimination” when you are trying to compare different circumstances but in reality there can be no discrimination if all gay people are treated the same. If they choose a certain lifestyle then so be it and if they by their choose do not get the same benefits as heterosexuals then that is something they choose!
.

To respond to the above comment:

The Constitution provides no argument against gay marriage.

Marriage in Australia is not defined in the Constitution. Until 2004, it was not even defined by statute law. It was the Howard Government who made the political decision to insert this discriminatory provision into the Marriage Act 1961. As we know, governments can make mistakes.

Moreover, even if marriage were defined in the Constitution, it doesn't make it "right". Until the 1967 referendum, Aboriginal people were considered non-citizens by the Constitution. Thankfully, the laws changed. Now it's time for the laws to change again.

Contrary to your claim, gay people are not treated the same as heterosexuals. They are clearly denied a right heterosexuals take for granted: a heterosexual person is allowed to marry the person they love; a gay person is not.

Why does this discrimination continue? It's not, as you claim, because gay people "choose" their lifestyle. It's because the Government - shamefully - disapproves of same-sex relationships.

(1) Jpw, I was referring to pederasty you’re quite right but you haven’t shown how I equated it with homosexuality. Read carefully.

(2) I bow to your impeccable reasoning, I thought being natural allies (gay academics etc)you might be persuaded to see far from being illusory the slippery slope is real. Nevermind. You’re quite right their argument still has to be valid, just because numbers of people believe a thing doesn’t make it true – well said.

Perhaps then, if you're not happy with their argument, you could provide us with an in principle reason why if being of opposite sex is arbitrary why the number getting married isn’t also? Otherwise jpw I’m afraid I’m going to have bow to what seems a logically valid argument.

Saying in essence “nah we’re not talking about that” won’t do.

(3) You haven’t shown or even bothered to argue (3)

(a) Same sex attracted people are allowed to marry their lifetime partner if they’re of the opposite sex that is what marriage is. Many marriages contain a spouse who has had same sex attractions and relationships.

(b) Did you read my reply further down? I stand by that.

I begin to wonder why, rather than showing how if all the privileges of marriage are granted to homosexuals they could then be denied to all kinds of ‘love’ partnerships, you instead call me a liar, a spreader of falsehoods, and insincere. This won’t do.

Rights? What about duties? I don't think you or Allison have thought about them. Allison spoke mockingly of religious belief – she’s a scoundrel using the same tactics as Bolshevism or Nazism in her Homosexualism rather than being honest about what these demands mean for Australia.

Jpw consult your philosophy lexicon - morally inverting the victimizer and the victim won’t do. Ordinary Australians have had enough of being cowed by gay lobby rhetoric.

Jpk, the Constitution is not just what is written!
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. DEAKIN.-
In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten,
.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. BARTON.-
Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.
.
The principle embedded is marriage between a man and a woman!
.You neither understand that Aboriginals were “citizens” since federation but become “non-citizens” because of legislation enacted after the 1967 con-job referendum!
.
See also my blog at http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH
.
Gay people have the same rights as other gay people. Heterosexuals have the same rights as other heterosexuals. To simplify the example, if you have to travel one hour to your job and your neighbour only has to travel 5 minutes to his job are you then going to argue that you should not have to travel that long? Or, would you accept that if you choose to take a job that causes you to incur to travel one hour then that was your decision and you cannot then claim the benefit of your neighbour!
Neither could your neighbour demand your higher pay where he doesn’t accept to travel for that long to get such a pay packet.
.
Hence, a person who chooses to live in a gay relationship cannot then demand the benefits of a heterosexual relationship.
.
Perhaps before you argue as to constitutional issues you might do better at least to research it to avoid undue attacks on another poster?

Stop trying to torpedo the debate by tossing in unrelated issues, Martin. This is not about duties, it’s about rights. The duties discussion belongs in another forum.

Name-calling doesn’t help either: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum Associating the people on the opposite side of the argument with humanity’s worst evils does nothing to promote civilised discourse.

I commend to you your own advice about reading carefully. I didn’t say you equated pederasty with homosexuality. I referred to “conflating homosexuality with pedophilia” and I also used the word “associate”. Any mention of equating came from you.

Similarly, I said you are spreading lies. We could indeed have a separate discussion about when it is accurate to say that someone who is spreading lies is also a liar, but I haven’t gone that far in your case.

You said, “Our entire civilization is unanimous that homosexual unions are less valuable.” I don’t believe that homosexual unions are less valuable, Martin, and the Prime Minister has recently been presented with the names of 25,000 Australians who agree with me http://www.getup.org.au/files/media/getuppetitiontoentsch.pdf In the best case, your assertion is a muddle-headed piece of silliness. At worst it’s a lie, provided here to build a rhetorical point.

You stated that Robert Spitzer “doesn’t believe in the gay lobby’s sexual determinism.” This is not true: “Spitzer says he was ‘appalled’ by much of the coverage, which he charges misrepresented his research and distorted his findings. ‘The problem with many of the stories was that they raised the question of choice. Of course sexual orientation is not a matter of choice.’ ” http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_2001_June_19/ai_75435305

You’ve repeated a lie which NARTH continues to spread about Spitzer and the APA.

And on the subject of the APA, their position on homosexuality did not change in response to social pressure. It changed when new scientific data came to light. Social pressure slowed down the change (a lovely radio documentary called “81 Words” gives a very personal account of this http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=204). However the mounting evidence that homosexuality is not a disorder had made it inevitable.

Continued

As for the slippery slope, the Beyond Marriage people are not arguing that if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, a necessary consequence is that other relationship models will be formalised. If you could successfully argue that on their behalf, I’m sure they would welcome your support. If you can’t, then there is no “logically valid argument” that recognition of same-sex relationships will lead to changes in the law related to polygamy and/or polyamory.

With respect to your opening assertion, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and allow that it might be a piece of self-delusion: “The social status of homosexuals is no better and no worse than that of anyone else who lives in an unmarried state.”

The fact is, you and many others are prepared to place conditions on the legal recognition of same-sex partnerships which don’t exist for opposite-sex partners. This alone is proof that the social status of homosexuals is worse. We don’t require that left-handed people may only marry right-handed people. This would be absurd. In the past we have had prohibitions concerning miscegenation, but we have recognised these as cruel and absurd too. The only irrational discrimination left is that against the recognition of same-sex relationships.

Add to this the daily torrent of people telling us that our relationships are disordered, and that in spite of our relationships being completely in accordance with the law, we still get reduced entitlements after our equal contributions to society. Then add the problem of homophobic violence in the streets and in schools. Knowing all of this, you still want to claim that homosexuals have equal social status. Which is it, Martin? A lie, or self-delusion?

No matter which way you look at it, be it from the perspective of individual human rights, from the view of modern philosophy, from a medical/psychological viewpoint, or simply from the principle of a fair go, discrimination against same-sex attracted people can no longer be justified.

This is Lyn Allison’s point, which your base, unworthy comments above seek to discredit with misleading references to evil.

To respond to Mr Schorel-Hlavka, above:

I maintain that the Constitution provides no argument against gay marriage. You have failed to establish your case.

1. Indeed, the Constitution is not just what's written. But the unwritten provisions are primarily concerned with the fundamental structure of our system of Cabinet government - the Westminster principles - not proscriptions on social policy.

2. The first definition of marriage, from the English case of Hyde v Hyde and Woodmansee (1866), was a part of Common Law. What you fail to mention is that this forms part of the general body of laws, not necessarily constitutional law. Moreover, Common Law can be changed by the High Court (eg Mabo).

3. Even if marriage was defined by the Constitution, the Constitution is not a universal, immutable expression of divine morality. It is a human construction, and as such, it can be changed when necessary by referendum.

4. Why shouldn't same-sex couples be entitled to the same benefits as straight couples? When many gays and lesbians are paying taxes and raising children, it makes no sense not to accord them equal rights.

5. Even if gays "chose" their sexual orientation, it doesn't justify denying them certain rights. This argument could be used to force Jews into concentration camps - after all, they "chose" their belief system, they deserve whatever they get!

6. Since gays and lesbians overwhelmingly claim that they do not "choose" their sexual orientation , and the American Psychological Association agrees http://www.psychology.org.au/publications/tip_sheets/orientation/#s3, the onus is on you to prove that they actually do.

Sorry, the link to the American Psychological Association is this:
http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html#choice

It just so happens that the Australian Psychological Society (linked above) agrees. As do all reputable psychological and psychiatric societies.

Jpk as to “not proscriptions on social policy”, then obviously you are not aware that things like invalid and old age pensions, and all in Subsection 51(xxxiiA) are all social policies in principle.
.
If people were to amend the constitution to allow for gay couples to get married then that ends the constitutional issue. However, until then the intentions of the framers was as what was applicable in their time and that was dealing with heterosexual marriages and children thereof, not man and beast, or man with several wives or a woman with several husbands.
.
Your core issue seems to be that gay people should have the rights of heterosexuals, for so far they desire them rather that homosexuals are entitled to their rights as long as they do not demand the rights ordinary belonging to heterosexuals!
.
These days it seems to be the in thing for man to claim they are suddenly homosexual as an illness as if it is the flu. Sure they fathered children in the mean time but that obviously was against their real illness of being homosexual born. Then you have the former hetererosexual having become bi-sexual then becoming a woman by sex change and that too is all along because it was a female body trapped in a males body.
As one young woman made clear on 60 minutes, she was born a man and had a sex change and now was a man trapped in a female body. If there is a God he must really make some serious blunders! Or perhaps it wasn’t what he did wrong but what is pretended to have been wrong. Here we had this preacher telling it was a sin to be homosexual and then he comes out of the closet to make known he in fact was for long a homosexual.
Can’t we not just try to be normal?
Having an affection for a person of the same gender doesn't need to mean you are gay! It is kinown that in the armed forces many have this due-to-loneliness but-revert-back once at home.

Jpw, you are calling for the dismemberment of thousands of years of effort of our Judeo-Christian civilisation of human sexuality. You want to impose on our fellow citizens a radically new understanding upon the laws and institutions that are both very old and fundamental to our organisation as individuals and as a society.

You’re damn right I am calling this a great evil.

As for ‘Beyond Marriage’ being nothing about gay marriage, I haven’t read a more dishonest paragraph in a long time. Look you know as well as I If we grant rights to one group because they have demanded it – which is practically how legalised gay marriage will come to pass – we will find it exceedingly difficult to deny similar rights to others ready with their own dossiers of ‘victimisation’.

The onus is on you to show how poor sinned against polyamorists and polygamists deserve to be discriminated against if sex of individuals is arbitrary “we don’t require that left-handed people may only marry right-handed people.” why not numbers then? You hoist yourself on your own petard.

Ultimately incestuous relationships can be made to seem no less arbitrary.

It was silly to try and claim our civilisation deemed homosexual relationships equivalent in value to heterosexual ones – all you had to do was say ‘the last three thousand years were one big pile of mistakes’ like so many other bigots. You’ve put yourself in a quandary jpw.

Homosexuals are wealthier more highly educated and occupy positions of power all throughout society. Homosexual activists, academics, lawyers, writers, artists exert huge influence well in excess of their numbers how dare you claim to require the rights of marriage for yourselves as if you were terribly sinned against

Jpw your fallacy radar should have picked up on the biggest – the idea of romantic love being the basis of marriage – it can follow, precede or remain wholly independent of marriage. The essence of marriage is to sanction and solemnise that connection of opposites which alone creates new life. Men and women can marry only because they belong to different, opposite sexes. In marriage they surrender those separate and different sexual allegiances, coming together to form a new entity. Their union is not a formalising of romantic love but represents an idea about how best to formalise the human condition. This is embedded in a promise, and the creation of this marks a key moment in the history of human development, a triumph over the alternative idea which is concubinage.

Severing the connection by defining it out of existence, transforming it into a mere contract between chums destroys the natural laws that prevent concubinage and incest.

Unless we resist, you included jpw, we will find ourselves entering the path to the abolition of the human – the gods move very fast when they bring ruin on misguided men.

No more evasions. Show how polygamy, polyamory and incest does not follow from your demands and show why my concerns deserve to be ignored. The onus is on you jpw. Answer in here or be silent.

Osama bin Martin: "Unless we resist, you included jpw, we will find ourselves entering the path to the abolition of the human – the gods move very fast when they bring ruin on misguided men.

No more evasions. Show how polygamy, polyamory and incest does not follow from your demands and show why my concerns deserve to be ignored. The onus is on you jpw. Answer in here or be silent."

Bizarre.

There was on Monday 20 August 2007 an ABC 4Corners program how a religious freak (Minister) was preaching against homosexuality but then later had to resign as a Minister because he was himself a homosexual. There was, as I understand it, the same with a Minister of Hillside Church in Australia. All over the USA this kind of hatred against homosexual is pursued. Granted, I, so to say, get sick of having a couple of blokes with earrings and hairdo licking each other in front of a camera, so with lesbians, but it is another matter to use religion for this while the very one preaching about these sins turn out to be homosexual themselves.
Homosexuals wanted their privacy in their bedrooms and they got this long ago, but as much as I dislike religious freaks to go after homosexuals the same do I deplore homosexuals to pursue the rights of heterosexuals.
When was a float held to celebrate heterosexuality as the homosexuals are doing with Mardi Grass? Is this itself not making clear that those participating want to be seen as a sideshow, freaks or whatever, as if it was so normal, as some try to make us believe they would not need some Mardi Grass kind of display, exposure.
Biologically a child need a mother and a father and neither two women or two man can conceive together a child! Nature had decided this for us and let respect nature for this. If homosexuals don’t like the rules then they are free to move to the Antarctic and create their own environment suitable to them and perhaps they might just cool off also.

Martin, your selectivity is even more curious than your dogged loyalty to thousand-year-old notions. What makes a taboo against same-sex marriage worth keeping, when taboos against miscegenation and sex during menstruation are not?

Just because something is old, doesn’t mean it is worthy. Slavery, monarchy and female circumcision are age-old traditions that we have honourably discarded.

Even the idea that men and women get together for the purpose of child-rearing no longer applies, not even to opposite-sex couples with children. Because we live longer, we’re breeding later, so typically a period of child support is bookended by much longer periods of staying together for reasons of interpersonal attraction – romantic love, if you like.

Kids don’t keep couples together any more, or hadn’t you noticed? How many seventy-year-old couples are still married for the sake of the children? None.

In any event, you’re still refusing to heed your own counsel about reading carefully, Martin. As I pointed out above http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6204#90030 Lyn Allison’s article is not about marriage – it’s about the removal of discrimination in federal law. The persistent introduction of side issues doesn’t add to the discussion, it poisons it.

I understand much better now jpw thank you.

Homosexual activists refuse to countenance what their radical demands would mean for Australia.

Australians are easy going people and wouldn't begrudge reasonable demands, but you're taking advantage. How have you treated a sincere question about the effects of your demands on Australia?

"don't want to talk about it"
"wont happen"
"poisons the discussion"

The application of a principle to new situations is the very definition of reason but you simply refuse to do this.

Oh Martin, you’re so cute when you pout.

Like I said above, from a social, philosophical or medical viewpoint, the discrimination against same-sex attracted people is no longer defensible. A fair go, nothing more, is what we seek.

When everyone gets a fair go, everyone benefits. It’s as simple as that. The existence of a group in society which is treated unfairly is corrosive for the entire society, because it creates the situation where it can be argued that group A is treated differently, so why not group B?

Lyn Allison is arguing for the implementation of the HREOC recommendations for equal benefits for same-sex couples. In her words, “People’s natural right to equality is being breached, and the efficiency and effectiveness of our government bodies are being compromised, because of elected representatives’ bigoted and old-fashioned views.”

The effect on Australia of granting equality to same-sex couples?

1. the reinforcement of the fair go principle
2. a clear signal that our federal government doesn’t mistreat minorities
3. an environment where kids growing up gay can do so without fear
4. a society that rewards equal contributions (and obligations) with equal benefits

Get over it, Martin. It’s going to happen, and the sky won’t fall.

Martin

You can't categorise 'homosexual activists' as one homogenous, placard-waving group. This is a simplistic stereotype, created in order to dismiss valid critiques. It's attacking the person, not the idea.

Activists don't 'refuse' to countenance challenges to their positions. See Rodney Croome's website, for instance, where he rebuts the arguments from a recent SMH article. http://www.rodneycroome.id.au/comments?id=2484_0_1_0_C

Indeed, Australians wouldn't begrudge reasonable demands. But conservative politicians will. The fact is, most Australians (71% - Galaxy) accept the sort of reforms Senator Allison is discussing. It's just the radical right-winger Howard who is holding our country back.

As for your 'gay marriage leads to polygamy' argument, Croome destroys it here ('Why there’s no intrinsic link between same-sex marriage and multi-partner relationships'): http://www.rodneycroome.id.au/comments?id=2032_0_1_0_C

Gay activists aren't 'refusing' to countenance challenges. You're just refusing to listen to their responses.

If just Federal Members of Parliament understood and comprehended what the Constitution stands for we all could have saved a lot of posting. After all Lynn Allison could then have done the right thing as to pursue an amendment of the Constitution, if that is what she desired, to try to make it constitutionally permissible.
Look at Kevin Rudd’s health proposal. He makes clear that if the states do not cooperate then he will pursue a “referendum”. As such, he isn’t going to ignore constitutional limitations but rather will seek the approval of the “people” (that is us) to approve what he seeks to be done. Now, surely Lynn Allison could pursue the same way, as after all that is what Section 128 of the Constitution is about.
As the High Court of Australia, and so Kirby J, so much made clear the Constitution should be interpreted as to what was applicable at the time the Constitution was framed. Then marriage was no other then between a man and a woman!
Whatever my personal views might be, if the Constitution was amended to include marriage to be also deemed as to same sex couples, human with animal, one man and a lot of woman, one woman and a lot of men, or even sex orgies, then I have to accept that the constitution would permit it. You might even get paedophiles to get the age of marriage lowered to 9-years-old or something of that kind to do as some other countries permit as after all if we are going to throw away our moral standards then why stop just to please homosexuals? Why not follow the lead of some countries where woman can be stoned to death regardless she was actually innocent, and whatever rot there is as after all why not follow the evils of other countries if we are going to say good-bye to morals?
Or, we just accept that we have a CONSTITUTION our superior law and those who don’t like it, including parliamentarians, can move to countries where morality is of the standards they desire.

Finally an actual rejoinder! Thank you Jpr.

I called jpw a homosexualist activist because in her push for the legal incidents conferred upon marriage to be granted to unmarried couples she refused to argue that, if her demands were granted, they would not logically entail extension to groups. This is the behaviour of a placard waver.

The arguments in the article you link to are threefold.

1. Nuns have raised orphans so same sex raising of children is ok.
This is silly. Women committed to Christ in a religious vocation are imaging the obedience in love of the creature for its creator, how is that or even single sex schools analogous to same sex parenting?

2. Holland has continued down the extreme path of group sex rights but they are just weird it won’t happen here.

That kind of reply is what jpw tried on, its not good enough.

3. And legislation has passed that denigrates the sanctity of marriage and life with permissive abortion and divorce laws so why can’t the trend include same-sex marriage.

In other words if heterosexuals are allowed bad laws why can’t we have just one more for us? Well this bad law is a really bad one, we kill over a hundred thousand of our sons and daughters every year in abortions - that is a bad law. Making a law that provides all the incident benefits of marriage to 'two men in a bed' is a multiplication of the tragedy.

1. “This is silly.” Good one Martin. What’s really silly is the naïve notion that being “committed to Christ in a religious vocation” confers super parenting skills. In fact, nuns have shown that they are just as likely to fail at parenting as anyone else (if not more so). Here’s just one example: http://www.courtroomlaw.com/news_soc.shtml There are thousands more.

Same-sex couples have been shown to be no different from others in their success as parents – most recently http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/533580/?sc=lwhn

2. I’ll make the point again, Martin. In order to make a slippery slope argument, you have to show that A necessarily leads to B. You have given an example where same-sex marriages are allowed, and where you claim polygamous relationships are also recognised. You’ve established coincidence, but not cause. Most polygamous relationships occur in places where same-sex relationships are not recognised, so in fact it is not possible to argue that there’s a causal connection. You’re talking through your hat.

3. There’s no connection between abortion, and the recognition of same-sex relationships, and you expose your own ill-intentioned ignorance by attempting to make that connection.

Finally, I reject the view that I haven’t responded to your points, and your attempt at patronisation by dismissing me as a “homosexual activist” discredits you, not me. I’ve listed four positive outcomes from the recognition of same-sex couples. All you can provide in return is name-calling, dodgy claims and associations with completely unrelated issues.

1.
Where did I say a religious vocation confers super parenting skills? My argument still stands – all things being equal women religious are a better example to children than lesbians for the reasons given – you simply don’t value those reasons – I think then you have bad taste.

Women religious would be the first to admit they’d rather not have to look after unwanted children, and work hard to find them a happy home. Your link is proof only of the trivially true “humans have a capacity for evil” and “the corruption of the best is the worst”. I hope all criminals receive justice and all injured receive healing. The vast majority of our men and women who have been disciples of Christ have done wonderful service for us, they have been the salt of the earth and our civilisation would be a wasteland without them.

Do you really want me to post links to research with contradictory homosexual parenting evidence?
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/DaileyGayAdopt.php

2.
I’ve been arguing all along there is a LOGICAL connection one that you continue to refuse to engage. You continue to show yourself to be someone who simply does not care about the repercussions of getting what you want.

3.
But you linked to an article that says there is a link between abortion laws and recognition of same-sex relationships. You really are muddled.

Finally, OK Devil’s advocate you HAVE responded to my point "if the sex of the individual in an erotic relationship is incidental then the number involved is also” and shown this logic to be defective. Could you please forgive my blindness and post it one more time.

At no time have I questioned the capability of a gay person in his/her own right to be a good parent, what I have however made clear is that gay people demanded their right of freedom in their bedroom and now that they got it demand their rights to be above the right of a child to have a father and a mother!
If gay people demand others to respect their rights to be gay then they also must respect the right of every child to be in a natural family! We might as well argue that a monkey might be able to bring up a child and so this then is acceptable? come on! As gays cannot between themselves create a child they therefore cannot be deemed to be a natural family!

Anyhow, when was the last time you had a heterosexual procession of people showing of their butts, etc. We have this freak show called “MARDI GRASS” and then this is supposed to be about “normal people”?

Basically, we are having children brainwashed that “gay” is in and it is normal! This is wrecking the children! We seem now to have an epidemic that children are learning that being gay is normal and a medical condition. Well, if gay is a medical condition then why can a person on his own will suddenly decide no longer to be gay? Perhaps like smoking, drinking, etc, it is a matter of stamina to give it up.
But, if people want to live a gay lifestyle then let them not, so to say, shove it down my throat, by freak shows, etc.
Neither-should-children-be-denied-their-rights-merely-because-some-freaks-desire-to-push-it-as-their-rights-to-have-care-of-a-child.

Murders, rapist, paedophiles, etc, all might in their own right be a good parent as gay people in their own right also might be, but that doesn’t mean that we then have to accept this as a society that we should not punish them for their deeds and consider that we hand over children to them! A paedophile might abuse children but his/her own but we as a society still set moral standards

“I think then you have bad taste.” Ouch. Got me there, Martin. I’m completely impaled on your rapier-like invective.

1. If you can provide links to rigorous research disputing the claim that same-sex couples are equally successful as parents, then please do so. However before burdening us with crap like the Dailey article I recommend that you read it first, applying what you learnt in your “science degree” http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4138#31126

Dailey makes one valid comment: the research into same-sex parenting has been based on small sample sizes (necessarily, I might add, because same-sex parents are a small subset of the general population). Then he launches into the usual unsubstantiated hate-mongering about “the homosexual lifestyle”. He extensively cites the widely discredited Paul Cameron, as well as Pope John Paul II, who of course was renowned for his scientific research. Dailey’s core objection that a lesbian cannot conduct an objective study of gay parenthood merits only one response – if this is true then neither can a heterosexual researcher be objective about heterosexual parenting.

Dailey’s article was published five years ago. Since then, larger sample groups have been investigated, and controlled studies like the one I cited above have confirmed the view that same-sex parenting is just as good as opposite-sex parenting. Again, I’d be delighted to see rigorous studies that contradict this, but please don’t insult us with stuff like Dailey’s hate-filled polemic.

2. Not sure what else I can say to get this through to you, Martin. Polygamy is legal in a few African and Middle-eastern countries where same-sex marriage is not. Same-sex marriage is legal in a few western countries where polygamy is not. The connection, if any, is a reverse one. This is a response to your “point”.

3. Maybe you haven’t noticed, but abortion is legal in Australia, with limited restrictions. Same-sex marriage is legal only under very narrow circumstances http://sxnews.e-p.net.au/news/australia-s-first-legally-married-lesbians.html There is no logical relationship between the two, and I’m not aware that I have provided a link to an article that argues any relationship. Please stop trying to establish a link between the two.

Sorry people for jumping in; it’s about a month ago since I posted here due to lack of time and posting elsewhere. I have not read all of your posts but I just want to start by replying to Gerrit’s last comment because he made the same/similar comment on the Victorian abortion thread and I thought I reply to it here as it seems more on-topic here.

I’m impressed by the points presented by JPW.

I'm fed-up with slippery slope arguments such as polygamy and paedophilia.
Slippery-slope arguments are used to convince people, who do'nt see anything wrong with SSM, that it would eventually lead to 'disaster'. Why should a judge or anyone else be concerned with hypothetical arguments- the law can deal with those separate issues later when it comes to that. Focus on the issue on hand rather than concern yourself with a myriad of hypothetical future cases.

The argument that “The institution of marriage should be protected and the definition of marriage should never change otherwise society will detoriate- blah blah…otherwise people would want to marry their hamster, have sex with a 3 year old, marry a crowd- blah blah” is moot.

The institution of marriage has been modified several times already throughout history as it evolved; why not allow it to evolve more? What would the risk be- that society becomes more civilised?

There is no valid reason to ban certain citizens from making a legal commitment to a person they love just because of their sexual orientation.

I don’t really understand you, Gerrit, when you compare monkeys as parents with homosexuals as parents.
They are a different species- we’re talking about humans as parents here and heterosexuals do not necessarily make better parents than homosexuals.
Foster homes have to deal with a vast amount of children who were taken from heterosexual families too dysfunctional to look after them, neglected and/or abused them.

There are good and bad homosexual parents as well as good and bad heterosexual parents, you can't generalise.

Celivia,

Using erotic love to ground the call for legal benefits associated with heterosexual marriage is a radical change. Love may or may not be concomitant with marriage – erotic love waxes and wanes. Marriage is the best protection of the RIGHTS of females to their sexuality and the RIGHTS of children to know their biological mother and father.

Leaving marriage intact is a great service we can do for the RIGHTS of future young men and women. The next generation deserve more from us who merely happen to be walking around.

Using the label ‘slippery slope’ is not the same as actually showing an argument is fallacious in that way. To reason your way would be to label the homicidal maniac refutation of Kant’s categorical imperative a slippery slope fallacy, when it is the exercise of reason par excellence. Still there is no response to my simple undemanding application of the principle being used by jpr and jpw in the obvious case of other ‘love’ relationships.

Jpw,

I don’t have time for mere insults. Nietzsche hated Christianity he had very bad taste (and his reasoning suffered dramatically). To not value Christ and his teachings is a lack in us.

1. Dailey perfect no, hateful where? As for SOCIAL scientific research, well its only as good as the next piece of research. I wouldn’t put all my eggs in that basket jpr. The argument that gay studies, genders studies, and other politicised ‘scientific’ research is tainted is not so controversial. How about Australia waits for definitive research. For the time being lets let children have a mum and a dad like we did. Agreed?

We’re all broken, all warped in some way why do you think sexual desire is immune? Eve will help here http://eve-tushnet.blogspot.com/

2.It is not a response to my point at all! If there was doubt before there can be no mistaking your evasions now!

3.It must have been the other jp who linked to abortion – the author said there was a connection I agreed but for very different reasons.

I don't know how much more plain I can make this, Martin. Just for a moment, let's say that you might be right. Let's look for evidence supporting your argument that the recognition of same-sex relationships will lead to the recognition of multi-partner relationships:

Multi-partner relationships are recognised in several African and middle-eastern countries. Has this led to the recognition of same-sex relationships? No, it hasn't.

Same-sex relationships are recognised in a few western countries. Has this followed the recognition of multi-partner relationships? No, it hasn't.

The general problems with slippery slope arguments notwithstanding, the particular slippery slope argument you are trying to make falls over in the face of the available evidence. If there is a connection between the two, it's a negative one - recognising same-sex relationships does not lead to polygamy, marriage to multitudes, or any other relationship type. Indeed, recognised same-sex and polygamous relationships may be mutually exclusive.

“Dailey ... hateful where?” Dailey is hateful in the same way you are, Martin, by spreading lies about same-sex-attracted people. See above.

"Agreed?" No way. Let's let responsible, law-abiding adults make their own reproductive decisions. Let's let their children have the same rights and benefits as everyone else's children. This, after all, is what Lyn Allison is arguing: the 58 laws which deny equal rights to same-sex couples need to be fixed. Earlier this year Graeme Innes outlined on OLO http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5549 how this inequality affects the lives of children too.

No-one is “using erotic love to ground the call for legal benefits associated with heterosexual marriage.” We’re saying that law-abiding adults deserve the same rights as everyone else. It has nothing to do with sex, or erotic love, as you put it. It has everything to do with the right to settle down with, to love and to support your partner of choice, without being disadvantaged with respect to one’s peers.

(Or is it simply that you don’t regard me as your peer, Martin?)

Finally, "it must have been the other jp who linked to abortion." Before you accuse me of being "really muddled," get your facts straight.

Celivia, “Offended by love” or do you accept sexual relationships between brother and sister? After all, why should they be deprived of their love if it is alright for homosexuals and lesbians to have a marriage?
Oh, you may argue about consequences of such a marriage, why, if they do not intend to have children? Not that I seek to promote such kind of marriages, but to those people they too have a “love”. In particular if they grew up and had sexual intercourse without then knowing they were blood brother and sister and only may have discovered this when planning to get married.

What then if a marriage took place before they discovered they were blood sister and brother?
And, while on it, many people, and particularly the elderly have animals that are for them like children/partner or whatever. Their love is genuine and to them if they can leave their estate to their best friend then why not allow any type of love even is this is deemed to be between human and animal?
Again, I do not seek to promote this kind of relationship but reality is that the “love” of a person towards another human being can have a special meaning and if we are going to lower society’s standards of what a marriage is about then why not let everyone have their own kind of marriage?
Or is it that just you should have your way and others not because that is not to your social standards?
Well, if you are going to have certain standards then so have others also. And, we normally express those standards in what we call “laws”.
We call it bigamy when you are becoming married to a person of the opposite sex when already married but in other countries there might be no such issue. That is why they have different cultures and laws. So, perhaps you might just have those pursuing a marriage between gay people to pack up and move to a country where they can live their “love” in such a marriage. Such a simple solution!

My third paragraph above should read:

Same-sex relationships are recognised in a few western countries. Has the recognition of multi-partner relationships followed this? No, it hasn't.

And before anyone starts claiming that polygamy is practised in The Netherlands, let me point out that polygamy is still prohibited in The Netherlands. There was one case where a group persuaded a public notary to let them sign up for a three-way “samenlevingscontract” or cohabitation contract, but at last report, this attempt to circumvent the prohibition of polygamy was headed for a ministerial review: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/354

Not sure how the review turned out, but I haven’t heard of any more examples of using the “samenlevingscontract” the same way

Gerrit,
you simply don’t accept homosexuality itself; use arguments why you are against it. You’re not just against SSM because you believe it will lead to something immoral, you believe that it is immoral on its own merit. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You are using slippery slope arguments to convince others that accepting homosexual marriage will lead to something immoral.
SSM is as much about love, security, intimacy, the sharing of emotional, financial and social benefits between two consenting adults as heterosexual marriage. Homophobes are so focused on SEX! It's only a part of the relationship. The sex is a consensual act between two mature adults and none of anyone's business, it's private.

Not all that long ago, interracial marriage was thought of as immoral and a threat to the sanctity of marriage and was a felony.
But hey, as society evolved and the zeitgeist moved on society came to accept new social norms.
Marriage between different ethnicities has not damaged any marriages between same-ethnicity couples.
In fact, today it’s unthinkable that interracial marriage should be illegal- there would be outrage if anyone would want to reverse the laws!
I am confident that Australia will finally catch up with other, more socially advanced countries and extend these rights to same-sex couples, too. Only a matter of time.

There is no reason to believe that updated, fairer social norms will threaten sanctity to marriage.
I am married with children and I cannot imagine how SSM would threaten my family life. In fact I think it will benefit the whole of society when homosexuals are not being treated as second rate citizens. Homophobia is a danger to society, not SSM.

Now as for marriage between different species, animals have a bit of a problem understanding and signing a marriage contract; neither do they have any legal standing.

Marriage between siblings is a slippery slope argument also because it's about incest and irrelevant to SSM.

It would be highly unfair if homosexuals are denied marriage just because incest or sex with animals is immoral.

Martin, sorry I didn’t mean to ignore your comment; much of what I said to Gerrit applies to you as well.

Divorce is the big threat to marriage, not SSM!
Heterosexuals have needed no help from homosexuals to make a circus out of marriage.
Don’t get me wrong, I think a bad marriage is worse than a divorce, I just make this point to say that the sanctity of marriage is being threatened by divorce; there is no reason to think that SSM will do it extra damage.

In fact, some statistics indicate that in areas where SSM is legal, divorce rates dropped. It doesn’t surprise me; it’s likely that homosexuals are all the more motivated to get married and share their life with someone they love because of their struggle to have their relationship legalised.

I do understand your point about marriage being the best protection of the rights of females and the rights of children; but homosexual couples want their rights protected as well, besides, lesbians can have children and homosexual men can adopt a child. Their children should be protected, too. Otherwise the kids of homosexuals are being treated as second rate citizens as well.

I see what you mean by the difference between ‘slippery slope’ and ‘fallacious argument’, so what I call slippery slope are really fallacious arguments because they’re not relevant to the issue in question. To say that SSM would have all these other consequences is fallacious because there is no relation between them.

If we say that allowing people to walk around the city armed with guns, then it would be a valid argument to say that this will likely lead to more shootings. Guns and killings can be associated logically.

But to say that, for example, SSM would lead to sex with animals or with siblings, or to group sex is a flawed argument because homosexuals are interested in same sex people, like heterosexuals are interested in opposite sex people and homosexuals are no more into sex with animals or with their siblings than heterosexuals.

Celivia why is it that you cannot accept the views of others? I have set out matters considerably and made known that “marriage" is between “a man and a woman” and this principle is embedded in the Constitution! This, as at the time the Framers of the Constitution did not contemplate that homosexual would pursue the rights of heterosexuals, that is what are benefits.

It is not a slippery-slope argument but simply views!

One of my brothers having fathered three children in a marriage turned out to be bi-sexual and later had a sex change and became a woman, became married and became a widow. I knew “it” as a brother, before I left The Netherlands.

Now, “it” went to live in Israel and automatically was entitled to citizenship because of Jewish heritage.

I oppose killing people, not on religious grounds, and my wife who practice religion often talks about how she likes certain politicians to be killed. Her conduct underlines to me not to get involved in religion, even so she call herself being a Christian.

Anyhow, personally, I could not care less if homosexual have something going on in “their” bedroom as that something I loose any sleep over.

However, when they are trying to pretend to be in a “marriage” then I do care because the institution of marriage os for heterosexual couples!

To try to make a simple example.

If you work casual then you cannot demand to get the same benefits as those who work as permanent. The employment conditions are simply different.
Now, if you then were given the opportunity to become a permanent employee but your employer would be faced that you still want to work at your own leisure and times as if you were temporary employed then more then likely he will tell you to buss off. It is one or the other.

The institution of marriage between a man and a woman. Simple as that! If homosexual want a permanent relationship then they can get their own kind of status but leave the “marriage” alone