Some very good posts lately in this discussion - and I think that woulfe encapsulates the core issues of the debate very succinctly.

I don't think that I can add much more, except to ask the closet homophobes once again...

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

The claim that homosexual marriage is an equal rights issue is spurious. As marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. And in that contract it identifies difference of gender not equality of gender. Because one could be abused or abandoned or immoral. Though both are equal before the law, it does not mean both are equal persons.

The marriage contract protects the dignity and interests of both partners within a contractual situation. That does not deny personal committments between two people. That allows two people to agree outside the State Marriage Act to uphold the same dignity and shared interests. The reason marriage is a legal contracted is because it involves responsibility to family, where one is a nurturer and the other a provider and protector of the family.

Two men sharing the same bed and both going off to work each day do not need a contract to gender roles and differences.

Philo isn't one of the closet homophobes I was talking about.

No way he's in the closet - he's out and proud!

Philo - we know that the Marriage Act currently specifies "man" and "woman". Our argument is that this should be changed to "two people" because the current wording discriminates against homosexual couples who want to marry.

Just to make it clear for you.

Now, why shouldn't the wording be changed so that the State allows them to marry?

Philo <"The reason marriage is a legal contracted is because it involves responsibility to family, where one is a nurturer and the other a provider and protector of the family."

Gee Philo what century are you quoting from? These days men and women often undertake both these roles in a modern marriage or partnership.
There is no reason why gay couples can't do this also.

I agree with CJM and Woulfe, however I don't believe we can ever change the minds of the likes of Philo and Cornflower.

I am out of here!

suzieonline

It is not my mind you have to change, try electorate instead and add votes. Because it is not about frivolous opinion polls commissioned by activists, it is about votes in an election supervised by the Australian Electoral Commission. As stated numerous times, the Greens do not have a mandate to interfere with the Marriage Act.

Moreover, the Greens are like bulls in a china shop, they really haven't thought through what they are doing. By way of example, if the Greens really believed their own 'rights' and 'equality' spin they would live up to the promises of their multicultural policy. To quote again what I have said before:

"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?
.....
The Greens' policy is uni-dimensional, benefiting the few gays and lesbians who are obviously well-connected, very vocal and stand to gain, while the remainder who want no change and do not want public servants probing their domestic arrangements and personal lives are collateral damage.

As for other ethnic groups, cultures and religions, well despite all of that (Greens) wordage about having equal rights, 'never you mind' is about it for them."

Come on Greens, if it is all down to 'rights' and 'equality', just what have you got against Muslims, for instance?

Not only don't the Greens have a mandate to fiddle with the Marriage Act but the major parties agree that the existing and prevailing mandate is to maintain the Marriage Act as it is.

The fact is that biologically persons of the same gender cannot marry, it is biologically impossibility. The purpose of sperm it to fertilize and fuse with an ovum to form a new person. If homosexual males copulate fertile sperm vaginally with a female are they biologically married, and fulfil the biological term marriage.