Of course gay marriage should be allowed in Australia. If two people of whatever gender love each other and want to commit publicly to each other, what business is it of anybody else or the government?

While the expressed homophobia from our religious fundies is predictable claptrap, I am a little surprised at the reactions of some others. As a professed libertarian, Col's denial of the right of homosexuals to marry each other seems a tad hypocritical.

Cornflower's convoluted reasoning also seems inconsistent from someone who has purported at OLO to be a defender of homosexual sensibilities. If we as taxpayers support allowances for the spouses of parliamentarians, how on earth does it matter what gender and/or sexuality they are? Incidentally, Bob Brown isn't the only homosexual politician in Australia.

Memo to the godbotherer contingent: Christians didn't invent marriage. Every society on earth has its version/s of marriage, many of which diverge markedly from the exclusive nuclear model currently in favour among Christians.

Also, there's a lot more to homosexual relations than anal sex. Some people need to get out more, I think. If you don't like the idea of homosexual marriage, just don't marry someone of your own gender, I reckon.

Denying marriage to a homosexual couple
is a form of minority discrimination.
As I stated earlier - we have in this
country equal protection laws - that state
the rights of minorities should be protected.
Denying marriage to a gay couple is no different
than denying marriage to Aboriginal, Chinese,
Lebanese, or any other minority couples.

People argue that allowing gay marriages will
hurt society. How? How does it hurt society
or people not involved in the marriage?
Marriage is a personal commitment that really is
no one's business. Society shouldn't be dictating what
two consenting adults can or can't do when no one
else is hurt in the process. If the church or certain
groups disapprove, that's their right but it isn't
their right to stop it.

One of the main arguments against gay marriage is that
it would further erode family values.

The opposite is true. The problems related to sexuality in
our society such as STD's stem from carefree, permissive
lifestyles. In other words having frequent, unprotected
sex with many partners. Marriage on the other hand
encourages people to settle down and to give up that type
of lifestyle. Married people commit themselves to one
partner and work to build a life together.

Isn't that the type of behaviour we want to encourage?

The only thing that should matter in any marriage is love.
Many people talk about legal contracts that can give
homosexuals essentially the same rights as a married couple.
If that's the case - then why don't heterosexual couples
use these legalities instead of marriage? Just perhaps
there's more to marriage than that. Perhaps marriage is
a commitment that says, "I love you so much that I want
to live the rest of my life with you."

Dear Rehctub,

If God didn't make Adam and Steve - Who did?

Why shouldn't gay people not marry? It is up to them, if they are happy, great! It is for no one else to decide.
Bloody moralists everywhere. If all those moralists only have stood up when we went to Iraq, with no questions asked, 1 million people could still be alive.
Those are the same bunch of people who feel at unease that the US is now run by a black man, as they are against muslims, refugees and so on.
Look into your heart and give life a chance.

m2catter,
You said, "If all those moralists only have stood up when we went to Iraq, with no questions asked, 1 million people could still be alive". I assume you mean, we should have objected against our entry into Iraq? If we did not a different 1,000,000 people would have died by our neglect to invade. Have you heard of the Kurdish people Saddam gassed? Have you heard of the conflict between different Muslim tribes like the Sunni and Shiite? When my nephew served in Iraq he was disgusted that most Iraqi males were bisexual, claiming men are for sexual pleasure, women are for babies.

In the last 10 years 1,200,000 people have died in Australia and you didn't lift a finger in objection. Over 8,000 persons in Australia have died with AIDS mostly from the homosexual community. Of course this does not concern you; you are still alive. Millions have died in African nations with AIDS because most males engage in homosexual practises and pass it to their wives

C J Morgan

Of course anyone who disagrees with you is guilty of convoluted reasoning or more usually, would be given a prejudicial label.

That homosexual pairings are not covered by the Marriage Act is simply because the State chose to regulate, support and exploit the common natural couplings that work to the advantage of the community.

As stated earlier, the State perceives that it needs population sustainability to keep its culture alive and hopefully some increase to provide the services and support that help the disadvantaged and vulnerable and for progress.

Quite obviously in its proactivity the State didn't seek to exclude for the sake of excluding, but being parsimonious with taxpayers' money (and that should be encouraged because there were some benefits involved) and reflecting the nation's conscience, the State deliberately referred to 'one man and one woman' and to a marriageable age (which some libertarian multiculturalists do not think should apply to indigenous children).

As I also pointed out earlier, there is a broad spectrum of life relationships and living arrangements that were not picked up by the Marriage Act and that was quite deliberate. Frankly I cannot see how any can possibly maintain that the Marriage Act should be trashed because its purposes are no longer valid or necessary when there is abundant evidence from government reports that firstly, the Act is still strongly supported by voters and secondly, the fertility of Australian couples has lagged for decades behind the absolute minimum required to maintain our population and way of life.

Of course the Marriage Act was never framed to recognise, celebrate and promote each and every combination and permutation of loving, committed, supportive and (hopefully) enduring relationship in the community, otherwise two maiden aunties living together would be getting a bit of tax relief and other slight guvvy benefits along with other pairings of two women (or men) where there is a bit of nocturnal nookie as well.

What evidence is there that the majority of homosexuals desire State regulation of their relationships and for Centrelink to invade their bedrooms to confirm?

Hi Philo,
don't share your opinion at all. If we wouldn't have helped to invade Iraq, those 1 million people would still be alive, or at least most of them. Saddam was a bastard, no denying, and if he would still be the head of his country, he might well have killed another thousand or so, to keep the balance his way, to stay in power. Who knows.
That doesn't give us the right to do what we did. I think that all people sharing your thoughts on this subject should fly over to Iraq, and ask or tell those who are left behind, that it was only for their best.
We are living here in Australia in a very safe place. All your loved ones are still alive and healthy? Good, I believe we should treat others with the same respect. People want to live, where ever that is.
The reason for the Iraq war was a complete different one, and to relate now to Saddams killings in an attempt to shift the responsibility towards him or to justify that stupid and cowardly war make matters worse for me. It was us, who failed.

In regards to gay men and aids, what has that to do with the subject of gay marriages?
If a guy wants to marry a guy, fine - if they are in love, why shouldn't they marry? The very same applies for gay females.
It is not up to us, to decide on other peoples love. Being gay is not an easy one, as I have witnessd several times here in WA.