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.