The ALP Government has shown signs of being ready to do the sensible thing in some areas. The reports of their displeasure with the ACT’s ridiculous idea of same- sex marriage ceremonies is one of them.

Johnson asks why Australia doesn’t have same-sex civil unions when countries such as Britain do. She mentions only Britain, and no countries which don’t have same-sex civil unions.

The answer, surely, lies in the fact that the only two parties able to form governments in Australia have the same attitude to homosexuality. Both parties know that they represent the majority of Australians who are clearly not homosexual.

The very tiny minority of people claiming to be homosexual have ample right to do as they wish with their financial arrangements, as anybody should have, so these people should just get on with their unnatural lives.

Too much attention is given to deviates who should be grateful that their way of life is tolerated at all.

And, despite what Johnson seems to think, it is not just religious conservatives who object to attempts at ‘normalisation’ of something that is quite clearly an abomination from an anatomical and scientific position

Arguing that Labor opposes same-sex ceremonies because of pressure from the christian right is just a little too glib. Within Labor there’s a solid block of old-fashioned social conservatives who oppose every concession to same-sex couples: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/labor-backs-legal-rights-for-samesex-couples/2007/04/28/1177459995793.html

Further, in the last election the christian right failed to establish themselves as a decisive force in Australian politics. While the Greens helped Labor over the line in at least twenty seats, christian right preferences determined the outcome in no seats. I suspect that Rudd’s concerns with respect to same-sex relationship recognition are related more to internal ALP pressures than to appeasement of the christian right.

Rudd studiously avoids talking about the rights of same-sex couples. When pressed, he delivers a few bland motherhood statements, and quickly moves on. His message of “support” to the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras is typical: “As Prime Minister I am committed to represent all in our diverse community. Mardi Gras is a celebration of that diversity and is a major Sydney event that brings thousands of people to our shores to experience the vibrant global city that is Sydney. Best wishes to all.” http://e-p.net.au/publications/displayimage.php?album=286&pos=8

While Rudd and the party he leads are not all same-sex couples could wish for, he’s adopted a policy of ensuring equality with opposite-sex de facto couples in his first term, and working towards a national relationship recognition scheme in a second term.

He’s also working hard to establish himself as a leader who delivers on all his undertakings.

On balance, I think that Kevin Rudd will be more good than bad for same-sex-attracted Australians. As a result, I think it’s appropriate to give him a bit of room to do what he promised.

I agree that the majority of Australians are not homosexual but that fact should not be a determinant in a government decision on endorsing same sex unions even if the majority dont like the idea.

I have yet to see a convincing arguement against the idea. I have seen statements to the effect it will undermine the institution of marriage - but heterosexual married people have been doing a fine job of that themselves for eons - some even hold the whole institution up to ridicule - look at P McCartney for example - and sundry other serial marriers.

I also cant let Leighs reference to homosexuality as un natural and a deviant practice go with out comment - not liking something is no basis for defining it as anything at all other than saying it is different from my conduct at best.

homosexual unions and activity have been with us - I guess - since the dawn of time - if the human race has carried such a form of behaviour with it throughout the ages I cant see it as being much more than normal variation on a biological theme.

More dishonest and deceitful tactics from a gay activist.

In every rant about homosexual "rights" one must be sure to smear all opponents as being members of the ``religious right'', imply any opposition to their agenda is driven by fear of homosexuals. (ie homophobia), rather than honest disagreement, and deliberately mislead by claiming gay marriage is only about "celebrating love".

Every gay activist knows, but conceals, that the ultimate goal is to have homosexual relationships put on the same level as heterosexual ones, including in regards to children.

It does not require belief in God, reference to a religion or right-leaning politics to put the logical position that the most important function of marriage is providing a stable environment for the raising of children. Not only do children crave their biological mother and father, it's their fundamental right. It doesn't always turn out that way (divorce etc), but it's simply wrong to deprive them of this by design

Civil unions need to be resisted at ALL times for the sake of the nation.
With them will eventually come the adoption rights and that will lead homosexual couples into molesting their adopted childen...for this is what is in the heart.
To bring those little children up like themselves.
The disease factor will likewise spread across Australian society consuming many innocent people as well. That factor is rarely looked at. Plagues will come and we wont get rid of them.
They have "the wall" down in Darlinghurst where gays parade their wares. I dont want to see a wall in every suburb.
Even today there are so many gays in Sydney you can hardly walk into a public toilet for a wee without one of them following you in and trying to squeeze up next to you.
Civil unions are a pandoras box that MUST never be openned!
All through the Holy Bible The Lord warns us about homosexuality. Those who practice it... dont get into Heaven. They get the pits with the spirits that are down there.
Sorry if I offended. I think I spoke much of the truth.

A democratic society should and must tolerate criticism, protest, and demand for change. For after all, each of us is a member of an organised society. Each of us benefits from its existence and each of us must be ready, like Socrates, to accept the verdict of its institutions.

Same sex partnerships are demanding legal recognition of their unions.
They are not asking for judgements in morality - they are requesting the same legal rights that the rest of society currently enjoys.

We are talking about lifestyle choices made by two consenting adults.
Why should society dictate as to the choice of gender? Our record as a nation demonstrates the validity of our commitment to freedom.
Freedom of choice should also apply - in our choice of our life's
partner. If that choice is protected by law - that law should apply to all parties, and not just a select few in our society.

Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas. ("So conduct yourself that you will not injure others.")

The new PM has not been in office very long - and yet he's achieved
a great deal. Given time, he will I'm sure do the right thing by all
of this country's people.

I think the freedom the youth of tomorrow really need Foxy is to be untainted by the misery and disease of the homosexual lifestyle. If we look at history in depth, at a certain stage, ever single homosexual/sexually immoral society fell and vanished. Its the way it is under God.
A gay person sincerely coming to Jesus Christ, looking for help, is how to get genuinely set free of the nightmare.
Being gay is only a spirit power that binds the victim.
No one was EVER born that way.
"Everyone who calls on the Name of The Lord Jesus Christ will be saved"...Romans 10:13.

Why do the godbotherers,live back in the dark ages.

Gibo When I come around and knock on your door, espousing homosexuality, then you can complain. In the meantime tell your mates to cease knocking on our door.

Then again I do love the look on their faces, when I tell them "This is a Gay house"!

Good article.

Gibo provides a fine example of the shaky ground that religious arguments are based upon. Gibo, whether you like it or not, you're doing a fine job arguing for the other side.

By way of rebuttal to some posts... I'll pick the most sensible out of a decidedly illogical collection of comments.

Grn, the reason why they assume it's because of the religious right, is because there is precious little to support the assertions outside of a religious framework.

You say that ideally, a child should have a biological mother and father.

This is understandable - however, unless you have the same problem with single parents, it looks more like a simple dislike of homosexuality. Surely two parents are better than one, even if they are the same gender?

In relation to adoption, I'd have thought that preference should be in this order:

1) loving parents, no criminal record
2) supportive environment, sufficient income to support the child
3) - possibly, your gender issue (i.e. a both genders for an upbringing).

I'd say that the gender of adoptive parents are far less important than the first two priorities. In the event that an ideal couple is available, then yes. But if it was a heterosexual couple than had anything less than a stable environment and solid income, then I see no reason why a homosexual couple should be denied.

Wouldn't it be better than an orphanage? You speak of ideals, as if this is an ideal world. I don't have any issues with homosexual couples raising kids provided they meet all the criteria, but I suggest that third preference in order to placate the admittedly large number of people that still seem to have issues with this.

Isn't that reasonable? If not, what part isn't?

So much ignorance, so little time…..

Leigh, you constantly march out your assertion that gay men and women can privately arrange their financial affairs to take care of each other, and should therefore shut up. That’s simply wrong. Please read the HREOC report on the 50 plus federal laws that discriminate against them, and then apologise at your leisure.

Gibo, your bizarre ranting barely deserves a response. If you still believe homosexuality is immoral, please move to Iran or Saudi Arabia where you will be amongst friends.

grn, I love your argument the most. Every legitimate, peer-reviewed study has demonstrated that children raised by same-sex couples have outcomes AT LEAST as good as the more ‘traditional’ alternatives. Even if you choose to ignore the research and base your sad opinions on thin air, what exactly would you have the government do about it? Take the children away? Yeah, that has worked brilliantly in the past, let’s try that again. The children of same-sex parents WILL continue to exist despite the law’s appalling silence about them, and those children deserve the protection of laws that treats their same-sex parents as a unit who are equally responsible for them.

I hope Rudd has some strength of character and stands up to the ACL and the other regressive elements of Australian society. I live in hope.

Actually, from where I stand Rudd is member of the "religious right", but it's all relative I guess.

I'm not going to respond to the blathering of the homophobes and Christian nutters - we've been there before and they just enjoy a platform for their odious rants.

Oh what an evil man Mr Rudd must be to keep his pre election promise not to allow same sex civil unions to mimic marriage. Amazing how the left is happy for Mr Rudd to break some promises but not others. THankfully he is holding off for the time being as the perverted homosexual lobby and its supporters show how intolerant they are of views other than their own.

What an appalling display of homophobia! What are you people so scared of? Gibo, if gays really snuggle up to you in public toilets then you must be giving them some very strong messages -- perhaps you should lay off the muscle shirts and the tight hot pants!

As it happens I think marriage ceremonies are pretty stupid anyway -- no government or religion should have any right to endorse or reject your private conjugal arrangements -- but if opposite-sex couples can do it then I don't see why gays shouldn't. As for raising children, THAT should require a licence -- but the criteria should be intelligence, health, freedom from delusion, a sense of humour and a stable personality, not what shape your dangly bits are.

In general, the arguments over this are very poorly constructed.

I think most Australians would like gay people to be left alone to live their lives as they choose. For all the hate the gay activists throw at Liberals, the most emotional press release the AG has ever put out was Amanda Vanstone condemning gay-hate crimes. And good on her.

But wanting to see tolerance does not extinguish the deep uneasiness ordinary people feel about messing with marriage as an institution.

I asked a gay colleague what he thought of it. He felt that he had no interest in GIVING UP the freedom he had taken for himself.

The important things are first the children of gay couples, and there are a lot of them. They deserve full equality. Second, the respect afforded gay couples should be as for other people. And third, the institutions of society should be managed in line with the standards of society.

That means the debate about gay marriage should not be closed based on political pressure on politicians or political ambitions of gay people and their PC supporters. Remember, gay activists are not looking out for society's best interests, but their own. It needs to be debated in the open.

It is my opinion that if we just carry on as we are, gay marriage will become a fact, because of gay couples with children showing the way.

Fuzzy Foxy is at it again.... each post revealing more of the 'inner' fox.

<<They are not asking for judgements in morality - they are requesting the same legal rights that the rest of society currently enjoys.

We are talking about lifestyle choices made by two consenting adults.
Why should society dictate as to the choice of gender?>>

They might not be ASKING for 'judgement' in morality but just as a Paedophile and a man wanting to marry his 'adult consenting German Shepherd'...they will jolly well get them!

Man....(1) plus (+) Woman(1)= 2
Man....Plus Man.. = immoral.(depraved)
Woman + woman =Immoral. (depraved)
Man + dog/sheep/animal=immoral (depraved)
Woman + donkey=Immoral (depraved)
Old man + pre-pubescent girl=Immoral (depraved)
Old woman + pre-pubescent boy=Immoral(Depraved)
Father having sexual relations with daughter=Immoral/Depraved
Mother having sexual relations with Son=Immoral/depraved.

Now.. have a whine if you like about 'who are you' to pass such bigoted judgements..... the answer to which is: "A member of a democratic soceity"... who happens to believe with all his heart that any type of union other than the normal, obvious, common sense type of responsible mature male with responsible mature female is asking for trouble, and also believes, on the basis of Gods self revealed truth that anything outside that common sense, obvious pattern is also sinful.

IF...... we take the view that 'its their choice' then we are basically saying "WhatEVER" choice people make is valid. Well sorrrrry, if our community took that view we would quickly descend into moral and social oblivion as 'every man did what was right in his own eyes' because "There was no judge in Australia" see Judges 17:6

WHY is not bestiality and incest just as valid as same sex marraiges?

I'll guarantee one thing...NO-one can give any 'moral' reason apart from Biblical law.
So.... when ur on a good thing...stick with it.

if marriage is a function of religion, that religion is entitled to say who may be married.

as a civil union, a contract between two persons to share wealth and support children, any two people should be able to participate. indeed, it makes sense to extend the idea to groups of three or more.

i can't imagine a gay couple demanding religious marriage in a religion whose custom or law denigrates homosexuality.

i can imagine religious bigots continuing to whinge about social evolution, but they're on the way out, not to extinction, but to irrelevance.

in the meantime, play together nicely, children.

I feel sorry for the gay folk. They will go underground again.
They have worked so hard for a great golden age when everyone would accept them ... but it is not going to be so.
The New World and ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT will have no place for them. Minority groups will be shunted off to some far distant back road and in many cases persecuted severely.
Once again concentation camps will grow and spread...here and there. Europe could posibly become a nightmare again. It will spread further...on to Australia me feels.
The ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT plan now, involves saving whats left of the world, from what we have already done to it.
Corners are going to get cut in niceties.
The Holy Bible talks about an evil world leader, the Beast, who will persecute far worse than Adolf Hitler; and his new economy the mark of the beast on either the right hand or forehead is going to be global. Enforced...but the christians abstain from the sake of their Lord.
So perhaps the gays shouldnt get their hopes up too much...though the Christian churches will always welcome them, if they are willing to turn from their sin to a Lord Who Will indeed save them from the devils manipulation of their lives.

Gibo, would you please stop saying sorry:

"Sorry if I offended."

"I feel sorry for the gay folk."

It's patently clear that you're not.

I feel sorry for the fundy folk... they are afraid that if gays marry, then cats and dogs will start shacking up together, and then where will we be?

Boaz David. You are a worry mate, "beastiality and incest". Makes one wonder what sort of mind you have.

To me it appears you have bitterness for something that occurred in your life, for you to have such antisocial thoughts, as you have posted.

Good heavens, Johnny Rotten. What a cavalier response.

It's not just cats and dogs shacking up they're worried about, I mean, honestly.

Clearly, they're worried that civil unions will result in gross displays of tolerance and mutual respect.

Worse still, by an extrapolation of the "it's depraved" logic of argument, it could result in... *drum roll* reduced attendance at church fetes!

Good heavens!

As for the beastiality and children crackpottery, I think that's been laid to rest with the whole 'consent' issue, so that's as logical as my church fete response.

Actually, less so. There's at least a modicum of logic behind mine.

I may as well argue that if people embrace Christianity, the associated drop in logic and reasoning that faith requires, means that if they become christian, it's only a matter of time before they become scientologists.

In regard to the: "it's depraved, the bible said so" argument, I'll respond with as much logic and brevity as that deserves.

I know you are, you said you are, but what am I?

Actually, further to that, I came across this rather humorous selection of 'reasons' why gay marriage is unacceptable. They're jokes, of course, but they do a fine job of highlighting how empty the arguments against it really are.

17. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

16. Gay culture is a new fad created by the liberal media to undermine long-standing traditions. We know this is true because gay sex did not exist in ancient Greece and Rome.

15. There are plenty of straight families looking to adopt, and every unwanted child already has a loving family. This is why foster care does not exist.

14. Conservatives know best how to create strong families. That is why it is not true that Texas and Mississippi have the highest teen birthrates, and Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire have the lowest. This is a myth spread by the liberal media.

13. Marriage is a religious institution, defined by churches. This is why atheists do not marry.

12. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why our society has no single parents.

11. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

10. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

9. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

8. Gay marriage should be decided by the people and their elected representatives, not the courts. The framers checked the courts, which represent mainstream public opinion, with legislatures created to protect the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Interference by courts in this matter is inappropriate, just as it has been every time the courts have tried to hold back legislatures pushing for civil rights.

7. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because "separate but equal" institutions are a good way to satisfy the demands of uppity minority groups.

5. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

4. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

3. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

2. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning

TRTL

ROFL

Thanks for making my Sunday

It used to be thought the 'end of the world' if Catholics married Protestants, somehow we have managed to survive that catastrophe.

But if we eliminate homophobia what will all the bigots do? They really have to hate don't they? Is there a gene for bigotry, perhaps? And why are all these bigots more upset about male homosexuality than they are about two women getting it off together? Strange paradox that one.

TurnRightThenLeft, will number one be my personal all time favourite?

That the god who created the universe gets really upset that gay males waste sperm.

- A universe with something like 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in it (http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970115.html) and us with eyes capable of resolving about 5000 of the brighter close ones (http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~gmackie/billions.html).
- A god who's own son was supposedly celebate.
- A god who's churches largest denomination has celebate priests.
- A god who designed human reproductive systems so that when used at capacity only have one sperm used out of millions for each child.

My all time favourite reasons for making life hard for gay males - god does not like sperm to be wasted.

R0bert

Ha, R0bert, I like your number one better.

No, the number one on the list I found was that gay marriage will cause meteor showers and wipe out life on the planet.

It was from a discussion group satirically entitled 'Gay Marriage Killed the Dinosaurs' in an effort to show how stupidly paranoid most of the reasons raised against it sound.

Regrettably, were I to posit the absurd notion that gay marriage would result in meteor showers, I have a horrible suspicion that a few posters would nod sagely and cite the wrath of god.

TurnRightThenLeft, how about Earthquakes?

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/141905

"(IsraelNN.com) MK Shlomo Benizri (Shas) caused a tremor Wednesday when he linked between homosexuality and earthquakes. Benizri addressed the subject in the course of a debate in the Knesset plenum on earthquake readiness.

"I suggest that the Knesset inquire into how it can prevent sodomy and thus save us a lot of earthquakes," Benizri said.

He later explained to a reporter that the Gemara calls earthquakes "zevaot" and teaches that they are caused by a number of things, including male homosexuality. "I therefore suggested that in order to limit the damage from earthquakes, it would be better to make fewer laws that encourage sodomy and other perversions, like adoption of children by lesbians," he said."

I think he was serious.

R0bert