I read recently that gays being denied
marriage rights took to nation-wide
rallies throughout the country. What I don't
understand is that according to surveys over
60% of Australians support same-sex marriage.
So why don't our politicians and lawmakers
sit up and take notice? Is it churches
making a final stand?

If you're into religion, that's fine - but
people today don't have to believe in God
or go to church to get married any more,
so why is religion such a big issue when
we're talking about gays getting married?
We're talking about civil marriage here,
so its a civil rights issue.

We all have gay friends or relatives who pay
their taxes and live according to the law.
Yet when it comes to marriage - the law
suddenly makes gays different from anyone else -
and marriage - the most important commitment
in anyone's life - is forbidden to them.

What sort of a judgement call is that?

Gay people are not stereotypes, they're real
people with real emotions and love for their
partners - and they want to get married for
exactly the same reason as everyone else does.
They're in love. They want to make a commitment to
each other.

I've read some opinions that say -
"Marriage will be devalued." I don't get that.
If more people want to get married, isn't that
good for marriage, doesn't it make it more
valuable in a world were more than 50% of marriages
end in divorce. It doesn't make sense to turn away
people who want to tie the knot.

Marriage is about love and commitment - and if
someone is willing to make that kind of commitment
we should be supporting them.

Gay marriages happen in countries all around the world,
and I'm sure that it will happen in the next 5 to 10
years here in Australia. Those of you against it
happening are, as someone said on another website,
" On the wrong side of history. You mightn't like it,
but guess what, no one will care!"

Foxy

It doesn't do to apply negative labels to people or imply they are out of touch simply because they have a different view.

It is a matter of fact that there is a groundswell of resentment and opposition from heterosexuals to the continuing intrusion of government it their bedrooms and private affairs (no pun intended). There is real concern that such changes have come from 'left field', entirely without mandate and without any consultation with the community.

Where is the evidence in numbers that all or most homosexuals, both gays and lesbians, are/were desirous of having their often flexible and fluid relationships regulated by the State as is being done to (definitely not 'for') heterosexuals?

It seems that those who presume to know what is best for heterosexuals also know what is best for gays and lesbians.
Through changes to the Family Law Act, such changes have already spilled over to homosexual couples.

It has been obvious in this thread that some of the vocal supporters of gay and lesbian relationships to be regulated by the Marriage Act are unwilling to engage in discussion of the pros and cons for homosexuals. However there already have been contentious changes to family law where consultation with the community did not occur and the outcomes have been controversial. Here is a current example:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/k-payout-for-jilted-lover-in-victoria/story-e6frf7l6-1225795350717

It is time that gays and lesbians stepped back apace and took account of what has already changed without any plebiscite to ascertain their wishes and without regard for the effect of the changes on their lifestyle. It is a mistake to be railroaded into more change under the guise of gay rights when the architects of the change are set upon tailoring a suit that superbly fits the few, but would be an uncomfortable and costly straitjacket for everyone else. The faux war about gay marriage is a clever diversion while elites negotiate what they want off stage, out of sight and free of all of that pesky and unnecessary consultation.

Cornflower, we're still waiting for you or anyone else to explain how gay marriage will in any way be bad for Australian society or heterosexual marriage. We know you don't like homosexuality, but we live in an evidence-based society and there is no evidence against gay couples.

Personally, I don't like capsicum and would be happy to see it banned, but I don't pretend that it's a rational or sane restriction to try and force on others.

Gay marriage is going to be law in your lifetime, whether you like it or not. Now would be a good time to examine your assumptions and decide whether the real problem is gay couples or your own unreasoning fear of them.

Also, you might want to be careful about claiming that acts of Parliament represent the will of the people, because you're going to spend a lot of time on OLO arguing the precise opposite.

Dear Cornflower,

In this country,as in many western countries,
marriage has been defined as a religious and
legal commitment between a man and a woman,
as well as the ultimate expression of love.
However, homosexual relationships are increasingly
gaining acceptance in this country; yet these
couples haven't been allowed to marry.

According to surveys and recent polls more than
60% of Australians support same-sex marriage.

I raised the question, "Should we allow gay couples to
legally marry?" because it is an issue that is being
raised in the media - and by gay groups and their
supporters in nation-wide rallies
in major cities throughout the country.
Sooner or later the country will decide on this issue.

While I understand your feelings on this subject - it
will ultimately be up to the majority of Australians
to decide - whether to give the thumbs up to same-sex
marriage or not.

Australians on the whole support the principle of
"live and let live," Tolerance and mutual respect,
whatever their background, is valued.
Most people believe that change should occur
by discussion, peaceful persuasion and the democratic
process. All Australians are supposed
to be equal under the law. Which means that nobody
should be treated differently from anybody else
because of their race, ethnicity, age, gender,
marital status, or disability; or because of their
political or religious beliefs. Government agencies
and independent courts are supposed to treat
everyone fairly. Denying civil marriage to homosexual couples
is treating them unfairly - and is a form of minority
discrimination.

All legislation discriminates and any of it could and often is, challenged over individual 'rights'. Interestingly, such claims are over benefits that can be obtained and rarely over people volunteering to shoulder the responsibilities and encumbrances of being a citizen. One of the few exceptions, where some citizens demanded permission from government to do their duty for their nation, is never celebrated in Australia and is never mentioned (feminists and the Left certainly don't want to know) was the march and demonstration by women outside Sydney's Town Hall in the dark days of WW2. They marched to request active service in the military to aid their menfolk to protect their families and the soil on which they stood.

The example of those women is a far cry from the constant demands of a victim culture for government benefits and 'just because'.

Going back to gay and lesbian marriage, neither you nor anyone else has been able to dispel the arguments I have put forward. When it comes down to the wire three facts are most apparent:

first, democratically elected governments have continued to support and enforce the Marriage Act as it is;

secondly, it is very misleading to claim that gay and lesbian couples do not already have rights because they do and they are covered by the Family Law Act; and

finally, 'rights' cannot be given without taking away the rights of others. The State regulation of homosexual relationships and the benefits that the few have claimed because there is advantage in it for them, have without question changed forever the previously unfettered, fluid and flexible lifestyle that the substantial majority of gays prefer. Did anyone ask them first? Heck no!

Cornflower, according to your own 'arguments', homosexual relationships are already subject to all the regulatory rights and obligations that heterosexual defacto relationships are. However, the State somewhat perversely continues to deny those homosexual couples who wish to marry the right to do so.

You haven't advanced a single argument as to why this should remain the case that isn't essentially homophobic or an exercise in convoluted sophistry.

I'll ask you again - why shouldn't those homosexuals who wish to marry each other be allowed to by the State?