In the context of currently ongoing discussion, the same sex marriage should not be viewed as a problem of morality, religion, culture, tradition, and even sexuality. This is a human rights issue of whether an individual has the absolute right to choose a life companion regardless of relevant moral, religious, and cultural values dominating in society. Such a fundamental human right of an individual should prevail, and society must accept and protect this right of an individual.

Dear Andreas,

It is important to recognise that there is
an immense range in marriage, family, and
kinship patterns, and that marriage like any other
social institution, must inevitably change
through time, in our own society as in all others.

If we assume that there is only one "right" marriage
form, then naturally any change will be interpreted as
heralding the doom of the whole institution. This was
done when couples of different races married. Today
few people give it a second thought. I think the same
will happen with same sex marriage. It's not a question
of "if" but "when."

Dear Lexi,

Thank you for your message. I am fully agree with you.
I believe that time to legalise the same sex marriage is now if we are not hypocritical about human rights.

Dear Andreas,

The following link by Sarah Hanson-Young
may be of interest:

http://greensmps.org.au/content/opinion-editorial/same-sex-marriage-human-rights-issue

Thank you, Lexi.

dear andreas...to claim a 'right to wrong marriage
is to subvert of lesson the intent and true importance of human rights

marri-age..is not about morality
its about exclusivity...to form a civil union

to insist that your reasoning of marriage
is the same as one that legitimises a child
with the lable [bar stewerd]..again negates the intent of marriage

a marriage is much like the animal equivelent
that allows the offspring of a mating to have definitive written origon

if you want to share things with your partner..there are infinite legal civil contracts..[to achieve those ends]

if you wish to solomise exclusivity with partner
swear a solum oath before god..[then put it into writing..for those godless types that need everything in writing]

if you expect a poor you reply
well you will get plenty of them

but mate you got no idea for what you ask
and going negative against religeonists..for your trying to make THEIR idea of marriage less..isnt helping no/one..[mate thats simply an athiest adgenda

you got an athiest pm..[supposedly]
but she sure is into moralising big time
[like forcing smokers to quite..by taxing us to death]

so aim your adgenda at juliar
cause it will never happen under tony

anyhow marriage..makes a husband AND a wife
ie a master patriarch and a slave under property right law

yopu have no idea what your asking for really is you as the boss
and the duty full wife...serving you your slippers and serving your brat kids..that cant be barstewards..cause you got proof..in writing

[you used genericly
not specificly]

read the previous topics
marriage is not of the flesh but of the spirit

but i allready explained that there
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4661&page=0

i hate saying the same things
to the same people

so please read that other topic

and feel free to challange what i wrote then
right here at your new topic

are you wife
or hushband?

do i speak to a master [mr]
or a slave?..[mrs]

Andreas writes
'This is a human rights issue of whether an individual has the absolute right to choose a life companion '

Everyone already has that right. Just don't pervert marriage in including homosexuality as part of it.

I do not see same sex marriage as a human rights issue. It may be seen as such by some in Australia but human rights vary as to the number of countries and societies on this planet.

Something acceptable in one society could bring you the death penalty in another.

Who is right? Good question.

Unlimited human rights is but one step away from anarchy. We do need suitable government, laws and discipline for any society to work. If same sex marriage be an acceptable part of the mix in a society so be it, but if it is not so the reverse should apply.

It is of little interest to me except to say do not champion these unions under the banner of human rights. It is a personal thing and should remain that way.

Take it easy.

SD

It is IMPORTANT.
That we say or do nothing that will hurt this forum.
I say that knowing this forum lost money because a poster offend advertisers.
I am not gay.
Not against them haveing the right to a form of marriage.
I however want the right to say this.
In defending the human rights of minority's,we MUST NOT CRUSH those of others.
In a thread about can we talk about race a hidden event took place.
During the life of that thread the former leader of Victoria, a man who has political views I never can.
Was squashed insulted and damned, for saying what he thought.
My side of the fence will always Be left but if free speech is only for some?
Left but never Green, Let them wed but not for getting the rights of most of us.

The right to equality before the law is one of the
most fundamental of all human rights principles
yet the Marriage Act does not recognise that right
of gay and lesbian couples.

Gay and lesbian couples have the same resposibilities to
pay taxes as anybody else. They are bound by compulsory
voting laws. They're not exempt from jury duty or any
other responsibilities under the law because they love
people of the same sex rather then the opposite sex.
So why in 2011 do they not have the right to marry
the one they love like the rest of us do?

This is a human rights issue. The denial of human rights
to same sex couples to marry, which other people are allowed
to do - but not them. Laws should be about equity for all,
not just for some.

I have no objection to homosexual unions of two, or more, people.

My objection is simply word useage. The word marriage means a legal union of a man and a woman. Then leave that alone.

Think up another word for a union of two males or two females. There is no need to hyjack a word already in use with a specific meaning.

...Very fortunately most people ignore the ABC and its obvious "slewed" opinion broadcast as "main stream thinking" which foists support for gay campaigns across the air waves at every opportunity.

...If gay rights were a human rights issue then the majority of thinking people who represent the conservative silent majority of Australians would have thrown confetti at the first gay couple to walk down the aisle one fine Saturday, many years ago!

...And comments of support for gay marriage from retiring SA Premier Mike Rann should be ignored; As the speech writer for Don Dunstan, reasons for Ranns bias are obvious.

...Homosexuality has unjustifiably positioned itself as non-abberational and the "Chick" thing to be, but to present this abberation of sexuality so publicly as a classic case of human rights abuse should be the subject of Government inquiry, not the claim to a percieved abuse of human rights, which plainly it isn't.

...In fact, what is further needed is the repeal of authorization for the Sydney Gay mardi-gra, unjustly foisted upon us, until "all" social impacts of the exploitation of the citizens of that fine city of Sydney and the state of NSW by the minority political movement of "Gay Rights", have had a fair chance to voice opposition to this major embarrassment. We in NSW, and in the absence of a succession of corrupt Labor state Governments which have overseen the embarrassment, demand from Barry O'Farrell, an inquiry into all aspects of its implementation from the past, as a matter of urgency.

...Dan!

Lexi,

It is impossible in the real world to achieve equity for all. If you manage to get the majority in the basket you are doing rather well.

A same sex couple in Somalia would be happy to have an evening meal between them and see the dawn of the next day.

The rights you speak of are for the more affluent , they are definitely not universal.

As I say who marries whom is of no issue as far as I am concerned. I just do not see it as a human rights issue. There are far more issues of greater import that fall in that category.

Great talking to you Lexi.

Take it easy.

SD

daer andrea's..you must know we have had many discussions
on the topic of gay marriage..[you might not know that we nearly lost this forum because of the same issue]

i think this link explains that near miss
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11583&page=0

if its the right article..from it you will learn
that there are those in your camp..who will do anything to silence opinion of 'others'

its these type that need full
and lawfull CONTROL over...'a wife'
[in its fully bound conditioning]

as you can see by the other replies
WERE ALL FINE WITH YOU GUYS MARRIAGING..each other as much as you wish

but respect those..formerly bound before god
in and out of the mirage of 'marriage'..
thewy have a right to their opinions too

there is no doudt..that many of your fellow humans have rights
indeed even a right to be called a wife or a husband
[if thats what you want]

but respect that a husband and a husband
or a wife and a wife...

is simply going that step too far for many
[who really feel a marriage formalises that title...clearly and fully]
cause thats what they wanted

if your not wanting to a real 'marriage'..
your wanting to make some point..[and so is your right]

but respect that husbands and wives...
[and their kids]..need that respect too

one MUST be the father
one must be the mother

anymore than that will only confuse an issue
many dont fully grasp fully..the concept of..[bless their ignorant hearts]

anyhow its fine if your not ready to state fully on the forum
if you be wanting to be the husband or the wiife

so think how you going to explain it
to the kids [fatherd/motherd..by one of the mirage partners]
because both cant be father/mother..[in its legal sense]
or even harder how will they explain it to their friends

one can only have one mother
and one sperm donating father

though both 'partners may be teqnicly capable
of bearing or fathering a child..only one of reality can be]

so think of the other questions
mummy[wife]...who is my dad
because your husband looks just like you
my friends say your both the same sex..did you have sex with daddy?

why didnt you marry my father?
who is my real daddy?

why do they call me names?
what does bar steward mean mummy?

its hard enough raising kids
without confusing them further

so at what age do you tell them we arnt hushband and wife
you got two daddies...and we paid mum to have you

were 'gay'..
because we love mummies
we..just wouldnt marry one..for your peace of mind

Diver Dan while we you and I live on different sides of the fence it is important to understand.
80% of us, forget the skewed polling,think a like.
And we that number are victims, of PC,
It heaves its bulk in to our lives sitting there on our table, demanding to be seen and heard.
But demanding too, we somethings we want,not be heard even spoken.
Just 50 years ago this subject would not see the light of day.
I except we have changed, but not to the extent this is other than a personal rights issue.
HUMAN RIGHTS~! well put, in a world that sees the very term stolen miss used, that sees some blindly looking to the very out of touch greens, a minor minority, to take that 80% and shake it in to agreeing with?
I do not oppose a legal ceremony for these folk, I do oppose the increasing if you are not for us you are the enemy self centeredness they impose on us.
A silence on some aspects is imposed because of fears we, like that Victorian, may be beaten to a verbal pulp, for just saying what he thought, a very inoffensive statement.
Our rights to speak are not free.
Yet most agree let them have what they want but why not as most of us a simple ceremony out side a church.

If homosexual people want to play house then good luck to them.

Why is this even an issue? After all, heterosexual marriage as a majority institution is basically finished. If heteros have abandoned the institution, why are they protesting about gays picking it up?

I think the solution would be to allow these same sex partners to become legally together but, come up with another word for thie unity, not marriage, as that should be reserved for a man and a woman, as it has since the beginning of time.

Sorry to offend, but the married word is taken.

As long as there is one couple in the world that is married, that word is out of bounds for man on man engagement.

The cheek of those homosexuals wanting to utilise heterosexual words to describe their union.....I mean to say, don't they realise that the "M" word is sacrosanct and reserved for normal people.

Although 579 seems happy to apply the word "engagement" when describing man on man relations. In'it funny how certain sensibilities are employed by some and cited like a moral edict from on high, while others are allowed to go through to the keeper.

andreas dont think harshly on us
personally i love that you found love
thats great mate..[where love is god is]

mate we are all opinionated..so please express your opinion
but we dont expect you to change your opinion..so how can you expect us to change ours?

personaly..[im a mug for punishment]
i lived through 35 years of mirage...staying only to be the parent
and now in my old age find myself consumed with others problems..to try to forget my own.

you may be right[that this is about rights]
and rights to be allright..must be all right..or else right becomes wrong

the truth is spiritually..we are ALL MARRIED
wether we know this or not..

swedenberg described how we each are a marriage..of spirits
others expanded on it further..explaining that each human has its conscience [husband]..as well as its wife [unconscience]

that the main life spirit..sustaining us each our life
is in the spirit realm..[often refered to as our 'guardian spirit']

sustaining you and me every living thing..
[wives in its full sense]..our material living..our very life

regardless of that we call sex..
be it exclusive love of one or the 'other'..sex or all sexes

the bible says wherever two or more are gatherd in my name
i am there..and i am is...

[if you wish to swear loyalty and obeyance etc..
as in marry..do so before god..before your friends
and familiy

i promise...no one will try to stop you]

in the end...[no pun intended]
god loves love..regardless if its
for your fellow man..or fellow other

ps the bible says specificly..not to take oath
to say that your yes means yes..and your no to mean know
[informed concent]

if you want what mum and dad gave you
[certainty of parentage]..then as a parent
you will have your pedigree papers..to state this

but god knows we are all pure blood
only men think they need it in writing
god sees whats written on our heart..by our works

It's a simple issue:
I would ask all straight people- would YOU be offended if YOU were not allowed to marry a member of the opposite sex?

If you feel this is cause to complain, then you would have your answer as to whether marriage is a 'right' or not.

I think more study needs to be done before the gay rights agenda is normalised throughout society.

For instance, was it the fact that the State of California forced this child into a lesbian parented household the cause of his gender identity crisis.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2043345/The-California-boy-11-undergoing-hormone-blocking-treatment.html

And further more, do same sex parents simply have a different style of parenting than opposite sex parents, i.e. have different expectations.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/lesbian-foster-couple-put-six-year-old-boy-in-girls-clothes-and-post-photos-on-facebook/story-e6freuy9-1226134282397

If more analysis was done as to the lifestyle of SS couples I think most people would be more comfortable with the agenda.

And then they could do some annnnnalysis as to why the great majority of homosexuals emanate from families presided over by traditional heterosexual parents and their lifestyle choices.

My meaning of 'marriage' used here is a legal procedure leading to establishing 'family' as a legal union, which is recognised, supported and protected by the state. Parties in such a legal union have been traditionally called spouses. It is not important to differentiate who is a husband and who is a wife, as parties in 'marriage' and 'family' are legally equal.
From this point of view, the same sex marriage is a human rights issue. It is a question of whether the individual must have the absolute right to decide whom to legally choose as a spouse, or the state should continue limiting such a right of the individual? It is a question of whether homosexual persons should be in every aspect equal before the law to heterosexual persons, or discrimination can be justified and continued?

'human rights' is just a code for demanding what one wants no matter how perverse. Why is it that those who bang on about human rights are happy to deny the unborn life (by killing them) and deny children a father and mother. The right of society not to become more perverse by inventing a new form of marriage should be more important than the 'rights' of a few who choose an abnornal lifestyle.

Dear Runner,

Thank you for your message.
'Human rights' are establishing areas where rights of the individual must indisputably prevail over the rights of society.
It is universally accepted that persons must be equal before the law regardless of anything - nationality, race, religion, political views, etc.
Consequently, persons must not be discriminated before the law because of their sexual orientation. Everything what the state and law are able to offer to heterosexual persons must be equally offered to homosexual persons.

Andreas you write

'Human rights' are establishing areas where rights of the individual must indisputably prevail over the rights of society.'

It is against the law to drive a vehicle when full of grog because it is bad for society. The individual right to drive drunk should not over ride the good of society. The individual right to have sex with man or woman is already provided for by law. Perverting marriage for the sake of very few is harmful for society. To normalise something that has such high disease rates and mental issues is not good for society. Again children being denied fathers are having their human rights denied.

As I said in my first post you are being picky about what and to whom human rights are given to. The rights of unborn children are totally ignored when they are murdered in the womb. A Muslim or MOrmon might claim it is a human right to have multiple wives. The defintion of human rights is very elastic with most 'human rights' advocates.

Andreas,
You avocate a word with three different meanings, which would require further explanation. These are three entirely different situations and should have a seperate word for each. Homosexual unions can still be a legal entity and keep the word 'marriage' strictly to mean a hetrosexual union.

Wordsmiths would love to come up with suitable new words for both types of homosexual unions. Some may even have an historical background. Promoting the new words concept may even enhance the prospects of legal recognition to homosexual unions.

i think the word 'marriage' is promoted simply to give the concept of legal homosexual unions more respectability. But in doing so it confuses the meaning of the word

Andreas Berg,
No one is denying anyone the 'right to have a life Long companion'. Such a claim that marriage is denying homosexuals such is fallacious and mischievous lies.

The identifying difference is the nature of sexuality which you deny is an issue. The union of marriage refers to a sexual union of a man and a woman. YOUR CLAIM “In the context of currently ongoing discussion, the same sex marriage should not be viewed as a problem of morality, religion, culture, tradition, and even sexuality.”

In the light of the exclusions you have made above there is no ground you can claim as a right if it is not morality, religion, culture, tradition, or sexuality.

On what ground then is your right claimed? There is ovbviously a devious agenda by the socialists to normalize homosexuality and deny others cultural, traditional and religious views of marriage and homosexuality.

Dear Banjo,

I believe that those homosexual people, who want to formally 'marry', are purposing to have their 'family' legally recognised and protected.
If to choose a word different from 'marriage', this would only emphasize discrimination before the law. Furthermore, if to choose a word different from marriage, this could also suggest that not a 'family' but something else is being established. It seems to me that this could be not only deepening discrimination and segregation but directly offending homosexual persons

Dear Philo,

Thank you for your message.
As you can see, I am arguing this matter on the ground of such a fundamental human right as equality of all persons before the law regardless of their morality, sexuality, religion, etc. - regardless of anything.
It is universally accepted that homosexuality is not a perversion or mental pathology. USA classification of mental illnesses DSM IV excludes 'homosexuality' from mental illnesses. So does the International classification. No scientific explanation for homosexuality has been produced so far. Religious views are unlikely worthy to consider in the course of this discussion.
Yes, homosexual persons are in minority and always will be. Nevertheless, don't we have universally agreed that no minorities must be in any ways discriminated? The state and the law must provide for any minority the same conditions as they provide for majority of people.

Says who Andreas Berg?

...At last a window into the delusional world of a homosexual suffering from the pangs of a "persecution complex":

...A glimpse at the sick, sad and delusional gathering at the Gay Mari-Grass in the city of Sydney, would attest to the potential social horror the mass of Australia awaits in ignorance, from the homosexual epicenter of oxford street, Sydney.

...For Berg to glibly snide that Australian society should willingly "roll over" and accept uncontested, every individual homosexuals demand for a free-for-all romp through the heritage values of Australian society as a concession to human rights, simply because he believes, erroneously, the individual has personal rights equal to, or greater than the good of the broader society, attests to his delusion!

The first myth:
...We may stretch the delusion to test his "Individual euchre" theory, by an imaginary extension of the rights of the individual to trump the good of the greater society with a theoritical trip down the expressway driving a Maserati at speeds quite within its capabilities of 250klm per hour within a speed restricted area of 100klm's per hour: The justification (using this logic) is the individuals right to drive his Maserati within the speed range deemed safe for the vehicle!

..."Bunkum". "The welfare of society should always trump the rights of the individual to cause it harm":

The second myth:
All are equal before the law. Great theory but so full of holes as to be laughable!

The third myth:
The law relating to marriage should be equal to all sexual orientations of society (including homosexuals). This is the "Swiss Cheese" myth.

...The law currently stands implicating the rights of marriage towards male and female only. (As much as I love my dog, I should NOT, for the welfare of society, be permitted to marry my dog): The logical outcome to society by extension of change, outside the currently accepted norm for marriage partners, the precedence "same sex marriage" will contribute, is greater risk of decay and damage to socially acceptable norms of behavior the new "logic" attached to the change will bring

The treatment of minorities will always be more about rhetoric rather than actualities.

In an ideal world universal equality may apply but the world is far from ideal.

Human rights are dictated by the majority or those in power for obvious reasons as are most things that affect our lives. It does not matter where you live on this planet this is a fact.

I would have thought the pursuit of happiness would be a greater desire rather than seeking official sanction of that happiness.

Take it easy.

SD

Andreas,
If the government legally recognised homosexual unions as 'M'and 'F' there would be, and could be, no discrimination, under law.

It simply recognises that there are 3 different types of personal legal unions.

Marriage would still be the term for a legal hetrosexual union. You just need suitable terms for the other two.

I have never ever suggested that the individual's rights should be prioritized over the rights of society. Neither have I suggested that the rights of society should always prevail over the rights of the individual.
There are areas of human life where the rights of the individual must have priority (they called human rights). There are areas of human life where the rights of society must have priority over those of the individual. Intelligent balance between these priorities is a strong indicator of how society is developed.
Equality before the law (regarding marriage too) is universally accepted as fundamental human right, which must have priority over the rights of society.
It is also worthy to notice that every individual should have equal rights. Precisely because if this, these rights cannot be endless and unlimited. No particular right of any individual must threaten or damage any other rights of any other individuals.
However, I cannot see how widening of the legal status of 'marriage' in order to include here the same sex union could threaten or damage any other rights of any members of society?
Maybe, the opponents of this view could provide some practical examples of potential damage they are worrying about?

Andreas you write

'Equality before the law (regarding marriage too) is universally accepted as fundamental human right, which must have priority over the rights of society.'

Who is it universally accepted by? Certainly not the majority of people in this world. Or are you referring to the UN who sees itself as God but is hopelessly lacking in any true morality.

Dear runner,

I am referring to the overwhelming majority of countries in this world, including Australia, which have established, developed, signed and support the UN Declaration for Human Rights.

Marriage is religions flagship institution so I can understand why they are so possessive of it. That said, the dwindling marriage rates are not the fault of lgbt people. I would be willing to concede that marriage isn't a right but a privilege some have, who meet particular requirements. But, if they do not adhere to this list of requirements, then marriage shall be stripped of them. How's that? Fair? I think so.
Adulterers, you are no longer married. Infertile couples, Nor are you. Elderly couples, back of the line. Oh, and the government is in charge of making sure married people foster children for the survival of the human race as, apparently, it's in danger. Should it see fit to curb our population growth, I take it all those in favor will hand in their marriage licences and abstein from sex. It takes only a second to put yourself in the shoes of the people being discriminated against. This is a civil rights issue and there is no legal, fair or secular argument to oppose marriage equality for all.

Personally, I think it is a big mistake to argue this from the viewpoint of Human Rights, Andreas Berg.

"I am referring to the overwhelming majority of countries in this world, including Australia, which have established, developed, signed and support the UN Declaration for Human Rights."

Could you bring us up to date, perhaps, on how many of these countries have legally recognized same-sex partnerships under the heading "marriage"?

I'm not arguing against the label, or the ceremony, or the right of any two people who choose, to describe themselves as "married". I am just leery of the entire Human Rights industry, and how it seems to require everything to be folded into its tender embrace...

Our author has run aground on the rock of Christian fundamentalism.
It is Christianity, and all religions, that first set out to control what we all do in bed.
Not being a believer I credit an understanding of the implications of wrong interbreeding for some of that.
It, rightly, has been said we are all moving away from formal marriages.
And religions too.
Let the Gays come up with a term,a name, then let them do as they wish.
Standing in the way you will find religion and a few who are fearful of any thing different.

Belly,
What gays do they have done since humans have lived on the Earth. They have even had lifelong unchallenged partnerships. They have never before in a democratic society considered they have no equal human rights. It is part of the immature agenda of socialism.

That they want to register their family is not a matter of marriage as two persons of the same gender cannot have a shared biological marriage; other gender persons have been included in the family mix. Such a mix would be considered bigamy
.
Marriage is not family, as adoption is part of todays family. Marriage can produce family.

Andreas

'I am referring to the overwhelming majority of countries in this world, including Australia, which have established, developed, signed and support the UN Declaration for Human Rights.'

A good reason to resign from such a morallly bereft organisation. Why are they not concerned about the human rights of millions of murdered unborn kids instead of being concerned about the selfishness of a few who want to pervert marriage. The UN is a joke. I doubt also whether the majority of countries support 'gay 'marriage. That is more a figment of your imagination.

"The same sex marriage is a human rights issue"

No it isn't. How ridiculous and what a dumb statement.

Dear runner,

Over 64% of Australians support gay marriage.
People who agree with our current and past
governments ban on same sex marriage citing
cultural, religious and historical views as
the justification for discrimination - are
doing so with flawed arguments. If we followed
these justifications for discrimination women
would never have got the vote, Aboriginal people
would never have been recognized as citizens in
their own country and Australia would never have
had women in the ministry, let alone a female PM.

The anti-gay marriage stance by our governments
merely reflects the lack of potential courage
as displayed by the antiquated parties we have
in politics. However, as I stated earlier over
64% of Australians approve of gay marriage - in
a few years from now we'll all be wondering what
all the fuss was all about. You may not like or
approve of it - you're entitled to your point of
view - what you're not entitled to is to impose
that point of view onto others. And the right to
equality as I stated earlier - the right to
equality before the law, is one of the most
fundamental of all human rights principles
yet the Marriage Act denies this to a sector of
our society. That has to change.

God I'm getting sick of people 'guilting me' into agreeing with them. In my day to day life I couldn't care LESS about who you share your life with. I don't care one little bit, but for people to come along and GUILT me into participating in their personal agenda I'm starting really get the [expletive] with it.

You can tell me all you want that various 'whoevers' have signed some piece of paper stating it's some sort of human rights issue, but aligning gay marriage alongside the right to life, freedom from torture, the right to believe without persecution, the right to health, food, water, etc, is offensive to those people DYING this very minute from some sort of horror.

We live in one of the greatest countries in the world with basic rights taken care of to the point where many whinge about nothing but RIDICULOUS things.

Gays can't live and be legally together? Bollocks.

Lexi,

The 64% who support would include a large number who do not give a damn as to what some other persons private arrangements were provided they did not impinge on their own lifestyle.

I for one think it is all a big fuss about nothing. People of all brands live together successfully, for a time anyway, with and without marriage certificates. I have to wonder why external recognition of your union and hopefully your happiness is a requirement.

There are more valid human rights issues, as you mention, as compared to personal partnerships.

If it happens so what. Something to rejoice about? Go help those who really do have issues as to human rights and there will be something to sing about. You do not have to leave town even to find people with far bigger human rights issues than this.

This is on par to having official approval to eat your favourite brand of ice cream. Modern marriages in the main are but temporary unions, certainly nothing to do with human rights.

Take it easy.

SD

Lexi,
The agenda is considered a human right by the Green Socialists because they want the law to outlaw those who object to this committed perversion of sexuality. They want this perversion legal so they can silence and take legal action against any who teach it is a perversion of normal human sexuality. They wish to deny the right of Jews, Christians and Mosloms religions to identify it as biological abnormal. Their agenda is a human right alright - that is a denial of the right to teach it as abnormal.

No other reason!

It is the same sense of equal rights of two couples who share a raunchy weekend together and enjoyed it so much that they decide they are such good friends they make a pact to move in together for the rest of their lives.

They share children of each other so they want their multiple mix registered as family. Gays want marriage registered as family with undercover spouses (surrogates) who bear their children or are allowed IVF, even though they are very capable of falling pregnant naturally. So the child grows up with an unnatural gender bias.

At least in the multiple relationship there is no single gender in the household. Suppose twins marry another set of twins and they are inseparable and sharing; do they have equal rights to have their relationship registered?

Does a Muslim man have equal rights to marry a second wife, a 14 year old bride because his wife is in menopause? They say it is no one’s business but theirs what sexual relationship they have. Stay out of our bedrooms

As I have said on previous posts, I support gay marriage. However, I don't consider it a human right, as the existing partnership laws are almost indistinguishable with respect to rights and obligations as the marriage laws.

If having the law changed does little more than give a status check tick, then it cannot be a human rights issue. I consider it a moral issue and I think it needs to be done, but over egging the cake denigrates genuine human rights issues.

From the time that I've been posting on this forum
I can honestly say that even though we often have
some very robust discussions - and emotive ones
at times - and even though we may disagree with
each other rather heatedly at times - I take
that as par for the course. However, I can honestly
say that deep-down I've never genuinely found any
one here that I thought was mean-spirited, nasty,
or a horrible person. And I feel that if anyone was
in genuine trouble we'd all rally round and help
as best as we can. I've recently read a very serious
article in my local community magazine about men
and depression and I can't even begin to imagine
what it would be like not to be able to marry the
person of my choice because some law said that I
had to be pigeon-holed into somebody's idea of what
a marriage should be. OK - some of you may not
recognise same-sex marriage as your idea of marriage.
That's fine - but when the law discriminates - then
to me at least that is wrong - and it does imbinge
on the human rights of others.

Agree or not - that's your perogative - but the law
has to provide equity for all. At least that's the
way I see it. The Marriage Act has to change.

Lexi,

I have always had the impression that more heterosexual women support same sex marriage than heterosexual men.

Could this be that love is sufficient unto itself in the mind of many women. Provided love is involved it is okay. That there is strong feelings of empathy in women that are not seen in men is fact, but that said, a human rights issue should not be based on emotions alone.

Those few words should bring the roof down on my head.

Great discussing things with you Lexi.

Take it easy.

SD

Dear Shaggy Dog,

I don't have the answers to all the big questions in life.
I'm still on my own journey of discovery. I think love is
important in our lives regardless of our sex. And we should
all be allowed to marry if that's what we want to do -
with the partner of our choice. As for our sex lives - I
think that should be a private matter (as long as it doesn't
hurt anyone). My philosophy is - live and let live. Enjoy
your own sex life - and somebody else's is none of our business.

Hope that makes sense.

Lexi,

Sounds okay to me.

One hopes the journey of discovery lasts your whole life. Every day should have something emotionally new in it no matter how small it may be.

A friendly word from an unknown or a smile from a complete stranger is not a bad start.

Take it easy.

SD

Dear Shaggy Dog,

As my father used to tell me - a kind word can mean
so much. So, Thank You and a big hug to you.

Lexi,
You said
"I've recently read a very serious
article in my local community magazine about men
and depression and I can't even begin to imagine
what it would be like not to be able to marry the
person of my choice because some law said that I
had to be pigeon-holed into somebody's idea of what
a marriage should be."

This person's depression can hardly be caused by a relationship not being registered as married. They must have a pre-existing cause of depression. Gays can live together without being registered. Not having it registered by the Government is no cause for depression. Heterosexual couples happily live together without depression in da’facto relationships. He needs to look deeper into his cause of depression.

Dear Philo,

You cannot make assumptions about other people's
lives and judge them according to your reality.
You (nor I) - in actual fact
can say with any certainty - what may or may not
cause depression in other people.
I was merely stating
that having read a general article on depression
I could not even begin to imagine - the grief
that it could cause someone - to not be allowed to marry
the person of their choice.

lexie quote.."'I could not even begin to imagine
the grief
that it could cause someone -
to not be allowed to marry
the person of their choice.""

good grief
romeo and julia ette
cant yiou recall not being allowed to buy
that blow up doll when you were 5?or that mansion when you were 15

we are so much into wanting things [on the other side of the fence
to only find in the end the gr/ass isnt as green as we thunk it to be]

heck what better words to live by
than you cant have that

or you cant do that
its the wish to have what others have
thats the root of all out angst

if only i had a million words
to explain what you got

not the 500 words
that describe what you cant get..cant have
unless you put in the commitment..will power.or study
IT TAKES..to earn the honourum

i want to be a mum
i will complain untill YOU KLET ME BIRTH MY OWN CHILD

i insist
its MY RIGHT
i WANT TO BE A MUM

NOW

bahhhh
baaaahhh
bahhhh
[the temper...tantrum mantra]

i want it NOW*
[god was wrong in making me a man]

I WANT TO BE A MUM
i WANT TO BE A WIFE

i want it
NOW!

now
now
now
i insist
its my right

Dear Johan (OUG),

Gays are not asking for any special or
preferential treatment.
Or to be treated differently than anyone else.
On the contrary -
They are asking only for the same rights
as other couples have in our society.

I'm suprised at you Johan.

Actually, it's interesting in that "marriage" is a social legitimisation of a relationship - a formalisation if you will. I think a real tragedy would be more likely if you were denied the right to be with the person you love rather than being barred from formalising the union (in a social sense).

Dear Poirot,

Yes. I agree. However, that's not the right that's
being legally denied in our society.
It's only the right to
marry the person of one's choice that is being denied
to a small minority according to the law as it
currently stands. And that has to change.

sexey lexie qrote quote..""I'm suprised at you Johan.""

ok in hindsight that dont sound too bad
[but to be honest i often surpise myself
at the stuff johan9..spouts forth with]

i often find myself at odds with his odd thought

he was a gay ol child
till one day he found out he wasnt gay

somehow he lost his gayness
lost all that he thought himself to be
so her realised if he couldnt be gay and happy
he would be sad and misserable...and stop others from being happy and gay..

to be honest its not his fault
he was so sure that he was gay
but somehow they stole even that word from him

then after suffering as a dutyfull husaband and father
under his self imposed marriage mirage,..[of being happy and gay ever after...well who knows...he knows he cant be gay..knows its only a matter of time till they change the meaning of happy

knows marriage..isnt meaning what he had to suffer
but feels that he deserved all he got...marriage is a mirage
[and as for happilly ever after[thats for dreamers..

i at least had ties
living genetic ties..
that held my bond-age of mir-age together
and still i yearn in my hert to be gay like you

""Gays are not asking
for any special or preferential treatment.""

no
we gay people
just let them change
the mean-ing of..*our word

making even the surity of marriage a mirage

im GAY
what doth that say?

and the media wordsmiths stayed silent
just as they now remain silent re marriages mirage

gays..dint ask...for special pref treat-men t..
""Or to be treated differently..than anyone else.""

just linked an abnoramal thing
with the highest expresssion of contentment

""On the contrary -
They are asking only for the same rights
as other couples have in our society.""

look i will give them gay
i will give them full equal complete rights to hjoin and fuc with anyone they like..but why should i let them keep playing word games with words and meanings?

marri-age...is suffering
its a curse..that allows others to change names
tio allow patriarchal subserviance..

that makes a child
the name of the master..[not the mother]
creates a corperatised 'person'..with statuted privledges
..*not INHERANT freeborn...*rights..

[like the right to life..liberty and the persuite of love]..
happyness or gayness..

truth in plain speak..
not clever spin..

Dear Johan (OUG),

Sorry you're too deep for me.

Poirot,
You are correct. The person Lexi read about was not denied access to his lover, a possible real cause of depression. Not to be able to register with the Government their relationship is a sign of something deeper than being registered as married. It is a sign of social paranoia or guilt. Having the Government register it will not remove that person’s personal guilt or remove public disapproval.

That's right Foxy, OUG is so deep and has such incredible insight and is so intelligent and cracks me up just about every time.

A surreal realist and original thinker.

OUG,

Please don't do away with Dodo next month.
Just keep on do do..ing here on line.

sorry lexie
i asumed you had more age to enjoin with ya wisdom
but not in this case it seems

ok i should check
for thick fingering before posting
[often i aim at the '0'...and hit the 'io'..or 'oi'

thus what was mean-t to be...to
becomes toi..[or tio]

and that does complicate my intention to gayness
[im meaning...in trying to ex-plain my under/standing of gay
as to mean...not my love of men..but my love of gayness....darn i dun it again]

i mean to say not in anmy mean way
that i mean not that i am licking..
[or is that liking..to lick men..except in a fair fight
but am aslso pre-paired to take my liking[or likking;..even kicking
if kinking is overdue]

im stil not comming a cross
as clear as i would have hoped dear

what i mean is im happily married to my gaynes
yet still cant come out and say im gay and happy too

but dont take this to mean that im happy
just gay

[and the happ*illy married thing
was more a hope than a reality..[or maybe just an expectation]

and no...know im not expecting

nor expectant..just trying to help keep the surity
that if im tall-king with a bloke..and what he done to his spouse

im just seeing that spouse word as deserving
as happy...but not gay

not exclusive to gay
[funny enough my estranged 'spouses name']

but lets try to keep this light
that gay wears too heavilly on me

i know im going in too deep
and will try a more slow stroke on my key bored
i was not trying to drive home my pointers..or indeed even my point

just stating that we have had too many changes..allready?
and while im fine forcing myself to be appearing gay when im not
im not content that two happy and gay guys...
get acclaim to happyness..

when i know it isnt marr-rage
that makes happyness..but only a loving live-in spouse

im not hyper ventilating
nor playing with my mouse
but its good i finally found out
by these marriage topics..how to spell out the marriage mirage

anyhow i need a quick shower now
for some reason im all hot and botherd
marriage topics can be as sad as the real thing

i wouldnt wish...the curse of marriage
on anyone..who claims to be gay

the words dont go two/get-her

ps thanks for the kind words constance
one of mankinds highest consistancies..[qualities]

its a great name
you wear it well

as for dodo only time will tell

I have to repeat my post on page 6 of this discussion, which remains unanswered by our respected opponents:
"I have never ever suggested that the individual's rights should be prioritized over the rights of society. Neither have I suggested that the rights of society should always prevail over the rights of the individual.
There are areas of human life where the rights of the individual must have priority (they called human rights). There are areas of human life where the rights of society must have priority over those of the individual. Intelligent balance between these priorities is a strong indicator of how society is developed.
Equality before the law (regarding marriage too) is universally accepted as fundamental human right, which must have priority over the rights of society.
It is also worthy to notice that every individual should have equal rights. Precisely because if this, these rights cannot be endless and unlimited. No particular right of any individual must threaten or damage any other rights of any other individuals.
However, I cannot see how widening of the legal status of 'marriage' in order to include here the same sex union could threaten or damage any other rights of any members of society?
Maybe, the opponents of this view could provide some practical examples of potential damage they are worrying about?"

andreas..you ask for the damage
men marrying men could possably do
[and thats a fair question]

see my spouse dont mind me spending time with 'the boys'
[does yours mind you spending time with the boys?
or do you mind your spouse es boy time?

ok how about the mens club
no woman allowed..because boys will be boys
usually not physicly loving each other but no doudt trying to?

ok how about that group of men[wearing dresses]
you know..the clergy...how ya think they must feel with that homo grouping..[will they have to marry christ as the nuns do?]

remember the bible is strict on exclusion of woman..pre their sacred rituals..[but note that dont exclude men]

also there is the issue of no sex before sport
i think that rugby player rukking each other up is a thing that neds a firm hand...[that man scrumming rukking thing could get out of control]

would the contest be better
or worse if they married each other

mate im not down on ya...[just know this]
as i said im happy you found love
but love has nuthin to do with marriage

[you will recall forced marriages
to unite family dynasties..or the royal kind/queen thing

and underage marriages...
so is peda/marriage a good thing?
its their right?

lets look at soul matings..[not asoul mate]
but soul mates can include many sexual types
thats whjat i really want to be writing about
[that and reincarnation..but i cant get the topic up

look there are many more reasons
but you got this thing in your mind..you want the wedding thing
to show the world your now spouse and spouse...mzzzz and mzzzz..

[yeah i know hushband and hushband sounded too much
even for you

but bride and bride..
mate thats a boys club fantacy

anyhow i would say your pushing it uphill

but dont want to get into the shhh[crap]..for saying simple truisms

personally i rekon go the name change/formal weeding thing

in its classic way
ie two less/being..[or is that lessabian]..
marries with two male homo gay person'..get the paper..!

do a wife swap
EXchange names...
photoshop the weeding photos..and bobs your unkle

only on paper you wont be unkle bob..but aunt tilly

see andreas
its only too easy

personally if i wanted my lovers oath in weriting
i would be content..to have her swear on a bible

do you believe in the afterlife?
cause you will love the gay heaven..

[not a woman within cooeee]..
just men...all men...all gay

if you like em married..or boyish
or manish mate..its great
[on paper]..

its hushband swopping like you never knew
wife swapping was a thing that sounded better..than the reality

couldnt get anyone to swap their's for mine

anyhow...dont take life so seriouass
enjoy what belesings..god has allready given the pair of you
you found each other once...you dont need a paper to prove nuthin..

go with the simple things
dont let govt into your life

[your not a govt agent provocateur are you?]
they sell us dreams..then when we swallow..they turn on the gas

Andreas Berg'
Are families able to teach their children that homosexuality is an unnatural act?
Are Churches able to read to their congreations letters of Paul like Romans 1:26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
Ro 1:27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Ro 1:28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
Ro 1:29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,
Ro 1:30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;
Ro 1:31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
Ro 1:32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

phillo quote...":Are families able to teach their children that homosexuality is an unnatural act?""

we get to that pot kettle thing
two mr wongs cant make a miss right

in any marriage there is a 1 in 20 change..that the spouse
will molest a kid...[one in 4 of kids get molesterd..in standard mariages

would these odds go up
with a doubling up of one sex type?

we wont know till the kids finally dare speak up
decades later..[then there is the brain washing thing
or simply bathing with your spouces kids]

i refuse to think further on that

""Are Churches able to read..to their congreations letters of Paul""

of course my brother
thats what they do

""like Romans 1:26..Because of this,""

mate there is a lot of 'because of this'..
before that bit you quote

like..;24..''changed the truth of god''..[good/grace/mercy]
''to a lie...served the beast''[ie marriage/ritual/govt rite]..
''more that the living loving creator''

like 24..''lust''
ie we got many lusts

like 23..''changed gods perfect/living/loving/grace image''..'to corruptable man[like a man dying on a cross..or like the use of imagry of hell..or like we saying god is 3 when god is ONE

the one wholly spirit..never was matter/material

or like 22..'in professing..THEMSELVES
to be wise'['they became fools']..IE VILE AFFECTIONS..etc

""God gave them over to shameful lusts.""

yes as mentioned in 21...'cause they glorified him..NOT AS GOD..
neither were they thankfull..but became vain in their imagenings..and fololish hearts were dark-end''

like 20..''for the unseen things of him''
''from the creation of the world..are clearly seen..[light/love/logic..bias fear hate..emotive name calling blame shame etc]''being understood that they are things that are made''

[by men]..''even his eternal power..and godhead..
so that they are without excuse''..

every word must be read in context
we in the end learn not to judge others
so when we are required to judge ourselves
we dont judge ourselves too harshly...ie give grace to recieve grace

Dear Philo,

Thank you for your message, but, I believe, it is off topic.
We are discussing here the same sex marriage along its formal legal meanings.
As all the people must be equal before the law according to the UN Declaration for Human Rights, it is proposed that homosexual minority is discriminated in the Marriage Act, and their human right to choose a spouse is violated.
Moral, emotional, psychological, religious, etc. aspects of this issue present definite interest, but they are outside this discussion.
May I also suggest that, in Australia, religion and church are formally separated from the state, and not all of Australians are religious and obliged to follow religious values and instructions.
Thus, I find your references to religious sources and values inapplicable in the course of our discussion.

Lets not worry about what the UN says, there's plenty of guidelines that come from there , but it is the country at hand that has to take up those recommendations. So on the basis of that, labor is not going to change the law , and neither is catholic tony.

Andreas Berg',
My cultural and religious concerns are exactly on topic; as the Socialist Greens want Christianity, Islam and Judaism removed from society and this is one topic they can take legal action against those that teach homosexuality is a moral sin.

Homosexuality has never been accepted as normal sex.

"Homosexuality has never been accepted as normal sex.".

And, never will be. Amen.

Andreas Berg'

please do an honest study on disease rates among those practicing sodomy and you could not posiibly believe that we were designed for this activity. It is something that should not be modelled to kids if we are truely concerned about human rights. As said previously the UN pick and choose human rights according to their dogmas. This latest perversion is just one of them. If they really cared about human rights they would oppose babies being murdered in wombs.