Dear Herman,

It was the
traditional Marriage Act- that stated that
marriage was only between a man and a woman.

Same-sex marriage is a hot topic of debate in
politics in Australia and globally. That's the
reason I started this thread - to bring it up
as a topic for discussion. I certainly didn't
expect to be attacked for doing so.
We should all be mature enough to have
discussions on a variety of subjects, including this
one.

I realise that homosexual relationships pose an
alternative and therefore are seen as a potential
threat to the present social system, which
depends so much on the heterosexual nuclear family
and traditional gender roles.

Part of the "moral argument" against same-sex marriage
is that marriage has always been between men and
women, as you pointed out. This historical argument
implies that history, somehow, provides a moral high
ground.

Similar arguments were once made against inter-racial
marriage, sentiments that would be publicly expressed
today only by racists.

A decision to marry is a deeply personal choice.
The Australian government prevents same-sex couples
from making that choice for themselves - simple
because they are same-sex.

The Senate Legal & Constitutional Committee Hearing on
Same-Sex Marriage was heard in Melbourne, Monday, November
9th 2009, as part of the inquiry into the Marriage
Amendment Bill. Opinions for both sides were given a
chance to put their case forward. The findings will be
handed down on November 26th 2009.

It's the first time in Australian history that a Senate
Inquiry has held a hearing into the issue of same-sex
marriage. Whether this Hearing is setting a path for
the future - we'll see at the end of November.

Herman, Thanks for your compliment ( - that you think
I'm a nice person). "It's what's inside that counts,"
as my father used to tell me. And, it's what my husband
and I try to pass onto our children. What is important
is the content of our hearts and minds, or what's
often described as character.

Enjoy your evening.

Foxy,

Your arguments are fundamentally flawed.

The "civil rights" strategy employed by activists to convince people like you that opposing homosexual marriage
is analogous to opposing inter-racial marriage is not accepted by the vast majority of african-americans.
This is reflected in their 70% support of Proposition 8 in California (it passed at 52%).
Obama knew this, which is why he pretended to support male-female marriage in his election campaign.
Most african-americans know that race is immutable and homosexuality is not.

"A decision to marry is a deeply personal choice.
The Australian government prevents (choose your sexual behaviour) couples
from making that choice for themselves - simply
because they are (choose your sexual behaviour)."
You still single out homosexuals for inclusion while excluding other sexual behaviours and I still can't work out why.

Activists rely on ignorance (and goodwill) by claiming genetic causation of homosexuality.
This has now been thoroughly debunked as you seem to be admitting.
You mention biological causation of homosexuality but
many pathologies have biological roots.

Having worked as a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst for many years with homosexuals who wanted to leave the lifestyle,
Dr Jeffrey Satinover's viewpoint is more informed than that of the vast majority:
http://www.narth.com/docs/pieces.html

How fascinating to see full-blown homophobia in flight.

Quite remarkable, really :)

HermanYutic,
Well it is obvious CJ is a beaten man he has no contribution to the debate, only emotive name calling.

It is notable that lesbian couples have artificial penisis, so it is obvious they know what should be natural sexual behaviour.

Philo,
CJ Morgan's response is the first and last refuge of the "progressive",
designed to cow their opponent into silence.....
Racist!!
Homophobe!!
Sexist!!
Islamophobe!!
Pick a topic, pick the corresponding epithet.

At present in Melbourne its 37 degrees plus -
and I've got a Cemetery to visit this afternoon
with a mother who's suffering from dementia - so
I can't afford to be distracted by anything else
at the moment.

All I'll say is that I really don't see how
allowing same-sex couples to get married hurts
anyone else. Marriage brings so much joy, not to
mention for families and friends. Every mum wants
to see her son or daughter get married. It shouldn't
make any difference is her kid's gay.

Anyway, as I've stated previously I'm now
bowing out of this discussion - - flawed or not -
Herman, Philo, and others, those are my feelings -
and we'll simply have to agree to disagree on this
issue. I respect your opinions, I expect you to return
the same courtesy to me.