Dear Philo,

You raised the topic of STD's, that
stem from having frequent, unprotected sex with
many partners et cetera. Well as I stated earlier,
marriage 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. I repeat, isn't that the type of behaviour
we want to encourage?

Dear Cornflower - Gays have been demonstrating for
years for their right to marry in cities around
the country. We're not talking about maiden aunts
who live together in this thread - we're talking
about the rights of gay people who want to marry.
The Bill of Marriage quite clearly states that:
"Marriage is defined as a union of a man and a
woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily
entered into for life..." This is discrimination.
Marriage is a commitment - does it matter that the
couple doesn't fit into what society is used to.
Society shouldn't be dictating what two people 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.

Foxy

ALL legislation discriminates if you would like to view it that way. What piece of legislation entitles without thereby excluding?

Nowhere does the Marriage Act set out to exclude homosexuals, rather such personal relationships, like the maiden aunts who love, respect and support each other, were rightly deemed to be quite irrelevant to the objectives and purposes of the Act and were not included.

The Marriage Act is fine as it is and it performs the purposes it was framed for. No substantial case has been made to trash the Act and come up with something else and as demonstrated the need to encourage increased fertility and to ensure the most economic and effective family arrangement for the care and raising of children is more pressing than ever before.

It is assumed by the hip supporters of homosexual marriage that all or even most homosexuals would be all for what they propose, but where is the evidence for that?

However notwithstanding any of that, homosexual relationships are irrelevant to the Marriage Act, full stop.

I haven't read anything here from anybody wanting to abolish the Marriage Act. All that some of us are asking for is it that it be amended so that homosexuals who want to marry aren't being discriminated against - as they clearly are under the status quo.

None of the homophobes here has posted the semblance of a valid argument against allowing gay marriage. Why should people who happen to be gay have their rights attenuated so that the prudes and godbotherers can have their prejudices affirmed?

Cornflower,
I said much the same as CJ your argument(sic) is a series of unfounded assumptions that bounce around and show no reasoned direction in fact start with the conclusion then searches to *manufacture* a justification.

I would imagine the last thing on the minds of the authors of our marriage act was to turbo charge births.(One of your many dubious based assumptions).

That was the Cheshire Cat's idea. Increasing Current wisdom is that more population shouldn't be our primary goal

FYI Marriage has been used and abused through eons by every race most often to signify ownership and to establish heretical links. After that it was used as a means to facilitate census for taxation etc. Churches adopted it as a means of controlling their flock to justify their existence and prevent intermarriage with other faiths.(all this is ultimately about power) Comparatively recently it also became to signify love, choice and personal one to one commitment.

Tell me where in that is it functionally exclusively heterosexual? That concept clearly comes to us from our religion (again, a means to control their flock).

Given we are essentially a secular state one would have hoped we've become more rational since then.

C J Morgan

A person who voices an alternative opinion is by your reckoning a homophobe? Where is your evidence for that?

Just to correct a misleading impression you have given, if your proposal is accepted it wouldn't only be the few homosexuals who want Marriage Act coverage because they derive personal advantage from it who would be affected would it?

In fact ALL homosexuals would be affected and in various ways depending on their lifestyle and circumstances> Many could come off worse than they were before. Examples of how that could happen could come from Centrelink and ATO. How many homosexuals would like the State determining whether they are in fact in a de facto relationship or 'co-habitating' without that being their intent or belief?

It would be interesting to know where the push for 'gay' marriage is coming from and whether the debate is being skewed in favour of the privileged few. Also, is the change more beneficial to one gender than the other? It is easy to see how those on the public payroll could benefit with super and other conditions at stake but what about the common people, particularly those on fixed and low incomes who could well be disadvantaged?

Apart from that, it is less than honest to claim that such a change to the Marriage Act constitutes anything less than a challenge to and total revision of the aims, purposes and desired outcomes of the Act. Because of this, it would be misleading and a fraud upon the community to do otherwise than repeal the original Act and start afresh with new legislation.

Examinator

Your history lesson is irrelevant. The federal parliament recently confirmed what Australia wants out of the Marriage Act and to quote the PM of the day:

"marriage as the `voluntarily entered-into union of a man and a woman to exclusion of all others'"

"We've decided to insert this into the Marriage Act to make it very plain that that is our view of a marriage and to also make it very plain that the definition of a marriage is something that should rest in the hands ultimately of the parliament of the nation....

(It should) not over time be subject to redefinition or change by courts, it is something that ought to be expressed through the elected representatives of the country."

The Act was framed around 'One man and one woman' and to trash that is to trash the Act and start again.

'Turbo charged' - your words, not mine.