Sancho,
Homosexuality is not an established norm and never will be normal behaviour in any credible health report or biological way as you suppose.

About one third of the worlds population are Muslim and sanction polygamy as natural,(as it is). However it reduces the status of women to lesser than a man. But on the possibility of polygamy it is more likley to have a greater argument than the sexual pervision of homosexuality which in Islam is issued with the penalty of death.

Complete misunderstanding of the post, Philo.

My question is why legalising gay marriage must automatically lead to legalising polygamy when, in fact, we routinely make legal discriminations between superficially similar behaviours. That is the norm.

But since you mention it, how is homosexuality more aberrant than left-handedness? I'm particularly interested in your opinion, because at one point in time your religion viewed lefties as servants of the devil. Is that still your belief, or does that seem primitive and silly to you in 2009?

And please define for us what a "credible health report" is. I consider a report credible if it is clearly based on observable, testable evidence, with sufficient rigour to eliminate contradictory and confounding factors.

Am I correct in guessing that your definition of credibility is more along the lines of "anything that endorses a convoluted interpretation of a tribal Bronze Age document featuring the supernatural adventures of a divine Jewish zombie"?

There has not been any convincing argument so far as to why government should involve itself in personal relationships through enacting regulations and thereby enabling or restricting entitlements where it isn't essential to do so.

There are many voters who would think that government has already gone too far, presuming to judge where individuals are in de facto relationships when that was not their intent. Now 'de factos' don't even have to live together.

There always were heterosexual couples for whom their marriage had ended and they lived independent lives but, through economic necessity were forced to continue sharing the same housing. In these cases outlandish 'proofs' are required to demonstrate they are in fact separate - tests which most people who share accommodation and group houses would likely fail.

In short, the present family law would not seem to have the confidence or agreement of a very significant rump, if not most of the population.

Continuing large scale immigration, multiculturalism and ZPG of the previous mainly European population weigh the balance towards a full review, rather than piecemeal tinkering, of marriage if any change is proposed at all. All of the 'rights' or 'equality' arguments mounted for gay and lesbian marriage apply and possibly more so, to Muslim and other faith marriages. There is already pressure for recognition of Muslim marriage and divorce.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/until-two-legal-systems-do-us-part/2007/05/04/1177788404897.html

This returns the debate to RObert's reply, which was the first posted in response to Foxy. RObert raised issues which have never been effectively discussed or resolved and will continue to surface. If there is to be open debate, let it be a real open debate, not just the advocacy of a particular view.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3191&page=1

BTW, where do the Australian Greens stand on recognition of Muslim marriage, since what is being pushed here is the Greens policy and political tactics on gay and lesbian marriage?

Still trying to change the subject I see, Cornflower. As a reminder, it's "Isn't it time to allow gay marriage in Australia" - not de facto regulation, paedophilia, nor polygamy.

You ask about the Australian Greens' position on polygamy. Given that they have a Marriage Equality Amendment Bill currently before a Senate Inquiry, you can probably deduce their postion on polygamy yourself from the wording of the Bill:

<< 1 Subsection 5(1) (definition of marriage)
4 Repeal the definition, substitute:
5 marriage means the union of two people, regardless of their sex,
6 sexuality or gender identity, voluntarily entered into for life.

[...]

3 Subsection 46(1)
16 Omit “a man and a woman”, substitute “two people”.

[...]

6 Part III of the Schedule (table item 1)
28 Omit “a husband and wife”, substitute “two people”. >>

http://tiny.cc/TFrL7

It seems pretty clear to me that "two people" is incompatible with polygamy.

Now that I've done you the courtesy of answering your question, perhaps you could belatedly do the honest and polite thing and answer mine, i.e.

Why shouldn't gay couples who wish to marry be allowed to do so by the State?

CJM

So as per usual the Greens social policies are piecemeal and are being made up on the run?

Then in your final sentence you add your usual dumb-ass false dilemma that everyone is awake to. Those superficial black or white arguments might appeal at your pub when everyone is drunk and you are welcome to them.

How do you reconcile your and the Greens' belief that the right of Muslims (or other religions) to having their form of marriage and marriage law accepted is a lesser right than that of gays and lesbians? What about the Greens' multicultural policy or is that just empty promises?

Greens - Multiculturalism 'policy'
Policy D15
Principles
The Australian Greens believe that:

1. the diversity of Australians’ cultural backgrounds greatly enriches our society and is to be celebrated.

2. people have the right to celebrate and express their cultural heritage within universally accepted human rights.

3. all people, regardless of ethnicity, culture, religion, language or place of birth, have equal rights economically, socially and culturally.

Fact is, it is nowhere near as simple as just allowing the few (the number changes according to the needs of the rhetoric) gay and lesbians to marry and you know it.

The Greens' policy is full of apparent inconsistencies and this is because very few of the so-called 'policies' exist other than by title. Obviously it is quite OK to cherry pick who has rights and who doesn't so the same sex marriage gets to be fleshed out if nothing else. That is despite the added, unnecessary complexity that will regulate the private lives of homosexuals and the probable losses for many, if not most gays and lesbians who do not intend their relationships to be decided by public servants.

This returns the debate to RObert's reply, which was the first posted in response to Foxy. RObert raised issues which have never been effectively discussed or resolved and will continue to surface. If there is to be open debate, let it be a real open debate, not just the advocacy of a particular view.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3191&page=1

Dear oh dear Cornflower - you're not very honest, are you?

Why is my question a "dumb-ass false dilemma"? It seems pretty straightforward to me, as it does to others in this discussion who've requested that you answer it. Instead, you invariably wriggle and squirm and try to change the subject.

It's because you can't answer it honestly without invoking the same kinds of "dumb-ass" blatant homophobia that your less mendacious, but equally hateful, cohorts advocate, isn't it?

While I'm not going to play your topic-switching game, I will note that you've engaged in a little "cherry picking" yourself in your last, typically convoluted post. The Greens' full policy on Multiculturalism is available at the link below, and is somewhat more elaborated than you falsely imply.

http://greens.org.au/node/785

Given your repeated dishonesty and your refusal to answer a direct question that pertains directly to the thread topic, I don't think I'll respond to you again until you do so. Once again:

Why shouldn't gay couples who wish to marry be permitted to do so by the State?