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.