Dear Josephus,

You have made a common philosophical error. You have confused an is with an ought. 'Is' refers to what things are. 'Ought' refers to what one thinks they should be. Marriage is not a biological principle. It is a human institution set up by humans in a particular time at a particular place in a particular society. Several states in the United States, several countries and several Jewish and Christian sects have defined marriage as a commitment between two people regardless of sex. If the Australian government chooses to define it that way that is what civil marriage will be in Australia regardless of what you think it ought to be.

Dear DreamOn,

About 20 years ago I made a homophobic joke. I saw the look of shock and hurt in my daughter's eyes. I have never made another similar joke. I now fully support equal rights including equal marriage rights for homosexuals. If she had called me names, ridiculed me or been angry I don't know what my reaction would have been.

We are living in a society where PC sections do not recognise gender as relative. It is not possible for one political party to have a platform of genderless sexuality. The only possible way to have things settled democratically is a referendum. That way the facts are shared from both sides and the public decide.

The question could be, "Should gender define marriage?" i.e. as is a man and a woman.

Dear Josephus,

Ideally, referenda decide questions where there is a difference of opinion, and the decision is made to involve the general public. I assume we agree that murder is simply wrong. Even if there was a majority in agreement with removing penalties for murder it would be wrong to do so if murder is wrong.

Of course it is never so clear cut as that. People have different opinions as to what is right and wrong. I feel that it is morally right that homosexuals should be able to marry each other. Others feel that it is morally wrong that homosexuals should be able to marry each other.

We wind up with the position that morality is decided by opinion, and opinion changes. I know that my opinion has changed in regard to same-sex marriage.

The reality is that the question will be decided without a referendum as that as is the way most changes in the law are made in our society.

Homosexual couples are not asking churches to marry them in the 'eyes of the church' they are simply asking for the same consideration that other Australians receive under the law, the legal recognition of their marriage. Simply apply the same rules to all regardless of gender. If a homosexual couple have a child to raise and are a pair of unfit parents like some heterosexual couples are then apply the same rules take the child into care. Like many heterosexual couples, many gay couples will note take up the option of 'marriage'.
How would it be if heterosexuals with a physical deformity were denied the right to marry because the majority found them repugnant. I believe much of the marriage discrimination against homosexuals is based on the repugnance of homosexuality by many heterosexual people, still believing sex between two people of the same gender to be unnatural.

Paul,

This time I agree with you.

SM No one is totally conservative (you) or totally progressive(me) most of us have different opinions on issues, that's fine by me. I know a few Liberal Party supporters who on social issues are far more progressive thinking than some conservative Labor people I know.