It's time to treat to all those people in intimate relationships equitably and fairly.

How cruel is it to deny the partner of 30 years standing the right to medical power of attorney or right to make funereal arrangements just because there is no gold ring on the left hand?

How nasty is it to deny unmarried partner the right to financial security available to surviving spouses?

I am sick of our politicians being dictated to by the religious holy rollers.

Same sex "schemes", or whatever the naggers who try to convince us that they should be legal call them, are or would represent a cop out by any government and encourage the ridiculous idea that same sex relationships should be acceptable to society, which, of course, they should not

I am with you Billie, who cares what the religious nuts in this country think, we are supposed to be a secular society who are not ruled by these nuts who believe in fairy tales. I think if gays want to get married who the hell cares, why shouldn'd they suffer like the rest of us married people.

How can we as society tell other adults how to live their live lives without love its just plain stupid and I don't understand it. I have a gay women who works for me and I afford her the same rights that my other staff get in relation to family friendly work practices because I thought it was only fair and proper to do so.

William Countryman is a committed Christian who bothered to do his home-work, the findings of which he published in a book titled DIRT SEX & GREED.

That is he did a thorough research project into what the Bible REALLY says about emotional-sexual matters.

Plus like the good scholar that he is he also bothered to consider the social and cultural context(s) in which the Biblical texts were written. He then asked if these context(s) are in any way applicable to life in the Twentieth Century.

He then asked if in a pluralistic society, Christians have the right to impose their (often unexamined) "values" on everyone else.

The answer was of course NO.

He also argued that Christians do have the right to argue their case in the public sphere.

Does it really matter what bits of flesh are on a person?If you love someone you should be able to validate that love.If it doesn't work,you divorce and start again.What business is it of other people if you are both the same gender?Time for the prudes and religious fanatics to wake up and stop judging others.

Ho Hum

'He also argued that Christians do have the right to argue their case in the public sphere.'

I see the paedophiles, the greens, the liberals, the labour, the unions,the Muslims the criminals all have a right to say what they like but Christians don't. This is an underlying belief of many of the lefties on this forum and in other places. I suppose you believe William Wilberforce did not have a right to impose his values on the slavery trade.

These quotes sums it up
'Paula Ettelbrick, the former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, has stated, "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so....Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society."

'Former homosexual William Aaron explains why even homosexuals involved in "committed" relationships do not practice monogamy:

In the gay life, fidelity is almost impossible. Since part of the compulsion of homosexuality seems to be a need on the part of the homophile to "absorb" masculinity from his sexual partners, he must be constantly on the lookout for [new partners]. Consequently the most successful homophile "marriages" are those where there is an arrangement between the two to have affairs on the side while maintaining the semblance of permanence in their living arrangement.[56]
The evidence is overwhelming that homosexual and lesbian "committed" relationships are not the equivalent of marriage. In addition, there is little evidence that homosexuals and lesbians truly desire to commit themselves to the kind of monogamous relationships as signified by marriage. What remains, then, is the disturbing possibility that behind the demands for "gay marriage" lurks an agenda of undermining the very nature of the institution of marriage.'
http://www.acl.org.au/national/browse.stw?article_id=18936

I agree with the author's comment that 'the Rudd Government should stop pandering to them [the religious right] and do what is morally required and legally mandated under international human rights law by providing a national civil union law ....'

Here is a real leadership test for our Prime Minister. Rudd can take heart from the Spanish people who re-elected a Prime Minister who recognised the need to assert human rights over religious dogma based on ancient superstition and delusions. Despite the vehement opposition of the Pope and churches around Spain, the Spanish people have shown everyone that they were ready to move on from dogma and support gay marriage. Israel's Knesset recently a passed an anti-discriminatory law on adoption rights. Both countries leaders have courage and principle. Rudd would find the same reception in Australia, given the overwhelming public support.

By way of contrast, look no further than George W Bush and his socially conservative fellow travellors in Australia: Howard, Andrews, Abbott, Heffernan and their conservative counterparts in the Labor Party. Their goal is to give respect and deferance to the biblical sanctions in the Holy Books, imposing unchanging BC values on the modern era (lest God smite our God fearing people with the same fate as the good folk of Soddom and Gommorah who had the double misfortune of destruction by seismic action, and perhaps a worse fate, forever blamed by orthodox Jews, fundamentalist Muslims and Christians for stirring God's wrath over their divergent but amorous physical activities). The true believers use the same holy text to justify extreme violence from stoning gay people to savage beatings and imprisonment.

We saw Rudd's somewhat understandable me-tooism to avoid another desperate Howard wedge. But that era of opposition politics is thankfully over. Now is a perfect time for Rudd's own statement of which principles are prime.

Does Rudd subscribe to the basic principles that underpin international human rights law by providing a national civil union law or equality under the Marriage Act, or will he be keen to pass the biblical litmus test of the religious right?

Runner,how many heterosexual partnerships do you know of where their is no infidelity.Have a look at the divorce rate for goodness sake.I know of none.Why do you assume that gay marriages would be any different?I know of gay relationships that are still going strong after 30 years or more.We are all human and all have the same desire,just some of us fancy different or the same sex partners.I have been married three times to members of the opposite gender.Leave others to sort out their sexuality and don't pass judgement.If society wasn't so judgemental maybe some of these same sex marriages or partnerships would last longer.Until you have walked a mile in their shoes etc, etc.

Why does it always have to be 'religious nuts' who are against homsexuality and other sexual perversions?

I am not the slightest bit religious, but I am very much against the unnatural behaviour of homsexuals and totally against same sex 'unions', as I have made very clear in the past.

Runner and Leigh. My partner and I of 33 years, see that neither of you make comment that my partner and I financially subsidize both of you.

As we do not receive near 100 government benefits that you can enjoy.

You both make out to be moralists, surely even you two must see the immorality there!

I'm past trying to argue with the sad homophobes of this forum - religious or otherwise. They're annoyed that they've totally lost the battle, which was never worth fighting anyway. They'll go the way of Howard and the dinosaurs soon enough.

I think Wayne's unstated point is that marriage is a rather ridiculous idea these days. People don't have to marry to live and be together, and as they get all the attendant rights, (straight) couples can merely say 'Why bother?'. They seem to get married these days when they're ready to have children, or when they're sick of being asked about it!

Marriage has become an optional piece of paper.

Partnerships obligations and rights might be more respected if they had to be earned, not claimed on a drunken night in Vegas a la Britney Spears. You should be able to prove that you have financial interdependence, wills etc before the state will recognise your relationship.

A quick anecdote will show you the ridiculousness of the current situation. Military pensions can pass to an opposite-sex spouse on death. There are women who haunt nursing homes to marry aged male veterans, and there is one woman who apparently now claims THREE military pensions thanks to men she's married on their death beds. However, the same-sex partners of veterans who can prove decades of interdependence currently get NOTHING.

So, spend your whole life together and get nothing, but a gold-digger who is eligible for a piece of paper can hit the jackpot.

Wayne - you were, by far, my favourite lecturer and you still rock.

Kipp: "You both make out to be moralists, surely even you two must see the immorality there!"

Well, you'd *think* so, but my sense is you're about to encounter a lack of logic that will astound you.

I cannot believe the homophobic attitudes displayed on this thread....am I living in redneck USA?

Sometimes when an individual displays such extreme resistance to homosexuality they can often harbour homosexual feelings of their own...particularly in males!

If you believe its not natural you should spend a week or two on a farm where the male animal displays homosexual behaviour more often than not.

How can you say that people choose this way of life - homosexuals are born - its not a choice. why would anybody choose a way of life where you cant legally share you life with the person you love or you are constantly attacked by people who judge you by who you choose to sleep with.

Just for the record Im a happily married hetrosexual mum who would continue to support and love any of my 4 kids who were gay.

And RUNNER - your comments are ridiculous!

Aren't you trying to impose your views on others?

Do you think that it is good when mother and son decide that they "love" each other and want to marry?

Some believe that one day "love" of an adult and child, will be legalised because it is right. Same people put their behaviour (paedophilia) to same basket as homosexuality. They are convinced that large society will accept paedophilia one day as they accepted homosexuality. This is my opinion and many others.
Both behaviours are antisocial and definitely wrong.

Also the society at large in my opinion was imposed that we have to accept homosexuality. This is wrong.

Somebody may claim that one "loves" an animal and wants to declare a marriage with an animal. Do you think that this is right? Do you think that this is beneficial or detrimental to society? But some people in did want to. Because they want to does it make right?
No, I do not ask you what is love. You have demonstrated that you do not know what love is.
Please disagree with me if you wish but save yourself anger.

I base my views on biblical values, on life experience, on science and on social rules.

I propose that already society have done lots of wrong by interfering with traditional marriage.

The so called defacto, is wrong. Again it is my opinion but because there are consequences of every decision. It is wrong to mix the two systems into one civilian society set of rules.

If they live according to their choice and take all the consequences for their decisions (good or bad). This implies that I believe that traditional marriage according to bible or other religions, is most healthy, most effective, most economical, most benefiting society and so on.

Finally what you call love, I do not call love.

In general I am against government interfering with marriage, and I mean marriage. But as government does not allow the mentioned relationships nor polygamy, because they are against the best interest of society, I really support government in that.

MMISTZ. You may believe in fairytales, but the majority of people do not.

Homosexuality has nothing to do with incest, paedophillia or bestiality, and people who think this way really should talk to a medical professional.

Because you are polite I will respond to your point. You disagree with me and have no rational argument/explanation of your beliefs, you simply suggest me to see the medical professional.
What would be your response when I say that I am one?
Well, do not take it too personally, just logically, how would you judge the situation when the mentally sick man in mental asylum who declare to be a Napoleon, one is convinced that he is right and everybody else (not the number is important but fact that others) is wrong? Is it possible to find an objective or an absolute truth? Or you propose that why bother, let each side have own truth/conviction?
But why this man is in asylum? Maybe it is wrong, maybe one should be supported in his mission to convert the rest of society to his views?

Now on general notes. There are issues where everybody is right for self and this is ok. There are other issues where it is essential to be able to establish an absolute right and wrong.

There are some philosophies which declare that there is no such thing as right and wrong, that everything is relative.

Yes my opinion is that they are absolutely wrong, but lots of people including scientists have same opinion. More than that, it is a form of mental deviation, mental disorder. Such theory is a theory of chaos.

Usually people involved/affected do accept and defend their behavior. It is natural and self preserving mechanism. For example an alcoholic when in denial stage when you ask one, he has no problem with alcohol, he drinks because one wants and can stop any time if want to. But one is unable to demonstrate it. Such man is in denial stage and no help is possible. Only when one admits his problem and wants very much to become well, the help is possible though difficult.

We will not go to analysis of brain physiology in case of sexual deviants. It is not the point but the social consequences of allowing or disallowing certain unions.