Foxy, I have to wonder why you do this. On the topic of same-sex marriage we become like two deaf old codgers roaring mutually incomprehensible nonsense at each other.

This pattern is repeated every time the issue comes up. When you initiated a discussion on the same topic two years ago http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1308 the results were just as polarised, and even less civilised than the current discussion. The comments on Rodney Croome’s article last April http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8779 tell the same story, with mostly the same commenters (including you, HermanYutic?).

Those who value fairness above tradition are apparently incapable of reconciling with those who regard their system of belief as a higher value than civil justice. Irrational repugnance for some sexual practices blinds many people to genuine love. The two sides of this argument are chasms apart, and the hope of finding common ground is minute.

In my view, no-one participating in this discussion holds an opinion amenable to change. We’re all so entrenched in our views that talking to each other on this issue is pointless.

It’s nice of you to keep pushing the case for equality, Foxy, but in this forum it’s pretty futile. I reckon those who want to achieve social change would be better off writing to their Member of Parliament. Those who just want a stoush will probably get a more thrilling kick at the Coogee Bay Hotel http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/03/10/1205125819801.html or Wagga Wagga’s Victoria Hotel http://www.smh.com.au/national/footy-and-alcohol-make-a-volatile-mix-in-waggas-violent-pub-culture-20090220-8dp6.html

In any event, the bitching and name-calling going on here is childish, destructive and very very sad.

HermanYutic <"..As a reasonable, unbiased reader..."?
You must be jesting Herman? With the possible exception of Runner, you would be one of the most unreasonable and biased persons on this site.

Foxy is right. You are a troll.

Foxy, you are fighting a losing battle on the subject of Gay marriage on this site. I admire you for the strength of your convictions though.

We have enough trouble rationally discussing legal procedures like abortion, let alone the currently unavailable legal Gay marriage!

I am amazed none of these blinkered people have advocated stoning for adultery.
Damn, I may just have planted the seed for a mad adultery topic!

Foxy,
Using the basis of your argument,
"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."

Therefore that means we do not discriminate on age, CASE: a 30 year old male who is mutually and passionately in love with an 6 year old boy may sanction that relationship in the Church and State under the act of marriage. The Muslim religion sanctions such in hetrosexual relationships. DO WE DISCRIMINATE?

One primary reason the State records marriages is that it documents the natural line of genetics, Who is a decendant of who, so in cases of determining genetic relationships it is documented. Genetic line is natural law.

For those who want same sex emotional relationships given this status are ignorant of the reasons genetics are recorded. Mariage is not about emotional relationships it is about the State recording the biological family. You register your children as descending from a father and mother a union that is marriage. Marriage entails a mutual sexual relationship between a potential mother and father and is what the vows protect.

Dear Herman,

You're not pointing out "inconsistencies,"
you're simply baiting and provoking to get
a reaction. That is troll behaviour.

I'm not wanting to change the law to suit
my "ideology." What I am trying to do is
have a discussion on the topic.

Finally, I've never had to resort to "tongue-poking"
in school, university, or anywhere else. That's
something you apparently are more familiar with.

Dear Woulfe,

Thanks for your concern. The reason why I raised
this issue is partly explained in my opening post -
and additionally there's been quite a bit of
coverage in the media on the topic. I thought it
would make for an interesting discussion - as there
were so many other threads on political issues and
asylum seekers.

Dear Philo,

In this country - nobody can marry an underage child.
So your reference to the six year old doesn't make
any sense. The marriage law that will be changed will
have inbuilt safeguards and protections - and will be
between consenting adults - harming nobody. The community
will decide as to the changes (if any) it wants made.

An overwhelming amount of research has been done showing
that homosexuality has a biological causation; not a
genetic one, but a biological one.

Gay marriage, as I've stated throughout this thread,
to me is not a religious issue, but a civil rights issue.
The fact is even the church has changed its very strict
rules regarding marriage over the years. For example,
in the past participants to a marriage had to be virgins,
marriage was till death us do part (wasn't optional), and
divorce was impossible, and the participants needed to be
of different sexes. The fact that churches have relaxed some
of these requirements - shows that they are capable of
change. As someone said on another website -

"The biggest threats to the institution of marriage and
indeed our society as a whole comes not from homosexuals
wishing to make a permanent commitment but from single
heterosexuals seeking to avoid them."

Dear Suze,

Always grateful for you insights.

HermanYutic - on the basis of your posts here, you seem to be anything but a "reasonable, unbiased reader", and at any rate you didn't answer my question. What do you mean by "natural law" and how does it pertain to gay marriage?

I think Foxy's characterisation of you seems apposite.

Philo, have you ever heard of adoption, or blended families? You made that stuff about genetics up, didn't you?