The New Zealand Parliament will now need to define what they mean by "two people who love each other" as forming the state of matrimony that needs to be recognised by the State. We would hope that love alone is not the defining factor in marriage.

Does that mean all single persons do not love, and married persons are the only persons who have love for another person? We would hope that all New Zealanders some love and respect for each other. Love alone as a factor to define marriage might be trendy but not what defines a marriage. It can only be defined on consenting sexual grounds, then do gays want their consenting sex recognised as marriage. Marriage can only be defined by the State on two person’s intention to form a family; to have children of their relationship

>>The New Zealand Parliament will now need to define what they mean by "two people who love each other" as forming the state of matrimony that needs to be recognised by the State.<<

Bullsh!t. The phrase "two people who love each other" doesn't appear anywhere in the NZ marriage legislation so its meaning is of no relevance to the NZ parliament. You are a liar.

>>Marriage can only be defined by the State on two person’s intention to form a family; to have children of their relationship<<

Bullsh!t again. The changes to the NZ legislation don't mention family or children: marriage is not defined by the State on people's intentions to have children. It isn't in Australia either: the State will quite happily recognise the marriages of couples who know themselves to be infertile and obviously have no intention of having children. Why is that you can't argue the case on its facts and feel the need to tell lies instead?

For those of you who prefer facts to Josephus's bullsh!t here are the actual amendments to NZ's marriage laws:

http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/C29CDB15-FF6C-457C-B33E-CD45E1EEC519/225087/MarriageEqualityAmendmentBill_1.pdf

The relevant section being this bit:

>>5 New section 23A inserted (Marriage of persons of same
sex not unlawful)
After section 23, insert:
“23A Marriage of persons of same sex not unlawful
“(1) The marriage of 2 persons is not unlawful by reason only of
their being of the same sex.
“(2) Anyprincipleor ruleof commonlaw tothe effect that marriage
between 2 persons is unlawful by reason only of their being of
the same sex is abolished.”<<

See Josephus? Just a bit that says that marriage isn't unlawful by reason only of the couple being of the same sex: nothing about love or families or children or whatever other crap you want to invent. Let's try to stick to the facts in future shall we Josephus?

Cheers,

Tony

Here are a few phrases all guvments and a helluva lot of individuals need to practice saying:
"Too much information"
"None of my business"
"Why should I care"
"if you're not hurting or exploiting anyone, so what?"
Or, if you want to get biblical:
"Love thy neighbour" -no qualifications
"Treat others as you would like to be treated" -no qualifications
It truly amazes me, how many good church going Christians revere the words of their God, but still think he accidentally missed a few 'buts' and 'except for's.
Sloppy, God.

PC is showing its head here, and a form of bitterness toward gays.
To be honest in my youth no government would have ever considered legalizing these weddings.
And many of us, afraid of what? I am unsure, stand firmly against changing the law.
Maybe we should see it is not the late night public toilets activitys we all, mostly, dislike, I understand why followers of God do not want what we call Christian weddings.
But why not legislate to make a different type of wedding legal.
No good beating around the bush, I if asked to vote, on same sex having the same ceremony, would vote no.
We however are a far different people than my youth saw, PC gets its hands on public opinion every time.
So mixed up as my thoughts are,why not legailse a special form for these weddings.
Our fears, biases, wants, will never stop same sex folk being as they are.

The 77 New Zealand Government members show their naivety by defining marriage based merely on “love between two persons”. This was the trust of the debate, which led to the removal of defnitions that excluded gays fro the marriage act. The marriage agenda has been set by gay socialist lawyers who have managed to hoodwink the people into a popular belief that marriage is merely defined by love between two persons. This is really “erotic” love, and not commitment to family which is “agapae”, sacrifice for spouse and children. Their real agenda is for healthy women in a gay relationship to access IVF and healthy men in a gay relationship to access surrogacy and both to access adoption. This means a challenge to existing social norms based on biological fact, and evolved principles held by society and the Church. We will now have fatherless and motherless children in society based on the emotional whims of the one parent who cannot accept their biological role. The child will not have a lifelong stable and intimate relationship and identity with both parents. This is a retrograde move to the stable health of children in society.

"We will now have fatherless and motherless children in society based on the emotional whims of the one parent who cannot accept their biological role."

I always felt sorry for Jesus...

I know he had Joseph, but that's a poor substitute when your biological father thinks he can come and go as he pleases.

Dear Tony Travis,

Surgically and forcefully done.

Loved it.

Yes, well said Tony : )

Sorry Josephus, but your' argument doesn't wash well in a secular society like New Zealand and Australia.

It's pretty simple really.
If you don't want to marry someone of the same sex, then no one will force you to.
Just leave all those that do want to alone.

It's only a matter of time before the Western world all agree on the validity of Gay marriage...

Dear Josephus,

We've covered this ground many times on this
Forum. The old popular song, "Love and marriage,"
tells us, "go together like a horse and carriage."
A compelling assumption in our society is that
every one will fall in love, will marry, will
have children, and will
have an emotionally satisfying lifetime relationship
with the chosen partner. The reality however is
somewhat different.

It is probably true that most of us fall in love
at some point; it is certainly true that nearly
all of us marry but not all of us have children;
and it is likely that a great many of us - perhaps the
majority - find that married life falls below
our expectations.

As I've stated in the past - it is therefore
important to recognise that there is an immense
range in marriage, family, and kinship patterns
and New Zealand has apparently recognised this
77 to 44 votes in Parliament. That is their
choice.

You seem to assume that there is only one "right"
family and marriage form, and you interpret any
change as heralding the doom of the whole
institution. You of course are entitled to your opinion.
But you are not entitled to try to impose your views on
others.

Well we've all heard about the Kiwis & their sheep. Is it true? Well, where ever there is smoke there must be fire they say.

Now all we have to do is wait to see if they include sheep in their libertarian ideas.

Oh & Suse, I think it may be a race actually. You say, "It's only a matter of time before the Western world all agree on the validity of Gay marriage".

Well I have to wonder which will come first, the total collapse of our once proud Western civilisation, or the validity of gay marriage.

Lexi

you write

'You seem to assume that there is only one "right"
family and marriage form,'

It would be more accurate to speak of the one desirable marriage form which does not deny any children the right of a father or mother. Polygamy is a 'marriage' form but highly undesirable for a society. Legisaltion should not promote perversion or what is not good for society. Surely the secularist have seen how much damage they have done by encouraging the destruction of families.

People always seem to get lust and love mixed up. Love would encompass what is good for others. Homosexual 'marriage 'is not good for society.

To indicate the rediculous concept of such a State law; we now have laws covering defacto relationships between a man and a woman who cohabit and do not register themselve as married; is NZ now to have State laws registering gays couples who cohabit and do not wish to marry; [whatever marriage means in gay terms]. The only thing that can define the biological state of "marriage" is a lifelong committment in a natural sexual relationship between a man and a woman

As the then Minister for Families and Community Services, Jenny Macklin herself said that same-sex law reforms introduced in 2008 had removed discrimination between same-sex and heterosexual couples in 85 areas and "Same-sex couples now have the same entitlements and obligations as opposite-sex de facto couples".

So same sex couples have long had the opportunity to declare their 'love' to government. Or be investigated for rorting Centrelink. It is amusing to think that the Gillard/Greens government found a way to save money and as a spin-off gave spurned gay lovers a means for vengeance through dobbing.

However I wonder just how many gays are demanding marriage. Typically the same few noisy gay advocates take the stage. The larger rump of gay marriage advocates are Lefties and Greens who profess no liking for marriage anyhow and want to see the State 'out' of marriage, leaving it open to all sorts of 'love' groupings (and the household pet included too?).

It is difficult to see how it is critical for gay love to be recognised for marriage and the Marriage Act trashed accordingly, but Muslim love is not. On the other hand the Greens/Gillard government has allowed bigamy through the very broad definition of partner (the meaning of couple is murky).

The only jurisdiction where marriages are made, is ... Heaven!

As that's where marriages are conducted, neither NZ nor Australia have a right to register marriages and whoever does so is an impostor!

Runner said " Polygamy is a 'marriage' form but highly undesirable for a society." Why not if it's okay for same sex couples ?
If one father and one mother married for life is not any better for raising children than two fathers or two mothers wouldn’t three or four better?
Once marriage is simply defined as a government recognized contractual agreement between two consenting people then there is no logical reason why it could not be a contract between three people or four people. This is not a slippery slope fallacy, but actually reality in places that have adopted same-sex marriage.
Two women who form a polyamorous union similar to the TLC show Sister Wives have sued the State of Utah in Federal court claiming the law against polygamy in unconstitutional.
While they're not arguing for marriage, ten years ago, neither were the LGBT activists.
What about the hospital visitation rights, the spousal benefits, the tax preferences?

The future is bleak for Western Civilization if marriage is opened to any combination imaginable and heterosexual marriage is abandoned in pursuit of more toys and career goals. Nations that have adopted same-sex marriage have all seen their total marriage rates decline. ]
A lot of us won't be around in 15/20 yrs ( if it takes that long) but what are your thoughts on the subject anyway, do tou think it will be the 'norm'? ( religion aside)
(I'm interested in where other's think the future is heading just for general discussion and not about the biblical consequences)

But won't it be a great boost to New Zealand's tourist industry.

Just imagine how many honeymoon packages there are going to be for all those Aussie gays and lesbians who want to tie the knot in not too far away splendid New Zealand.

I can just see Alan Jones skipping around the NZ alps singing all of his favourite songs from a Sound of Music. Ahhh....isn't love beautiful.

Hmmm......I just wonder if this idea might have also been in the minds of NZ's MPs when they voted Yea.

saussie <"The future is bleak for Western Civilization if marriage is opened to any combination imaginable and heterosexual marriage is abandoned in pursuit of more toys and career goals. Nations that have adopted same-sex marriage have all seen their total marriage rates decline. ]"

Is that right? Do you have any statistics to prove this statement?
Did the sky fall in at those nations too?
I doubt there will ever be marriage opened to ANY combination at all.

I don't really have a problem with plural marriages, as long as women can also marry multiple men, and no one under 18 should be allowed to marry anyone.
However, there would have to be strict rules to prevent problems that currently plague illegal plural marriages .

In fact, I can see far more problems with polygamous marriages than I can with Gay marriages.

Gay people can no more help who they fall in love with than heterosexual people can.
It is cruel to deny these people the same romantic rights as any other lovers.

Having multiple wives is not a problem to the State as multiple husbands; as paternity of the children cannot be established and increases risk of cancer in the woman. However multiple wives reduces the equality of women to men.

There is only one model that raises the standard and health of society and that is a mutually committed lifelong relationship between a man and a woman, as it gives security to their children.

The registering by the State of marriages, births and deaths was developed in Western society by the Romans to keep a record of their citizens. The registrations are NOT the marriage as is the birth or death it is merely the public record and is accountable in legal terms. Gays actually do not marry, they merely register their relationship and they may call it marriage, but marriage is a biological term that can only happen between a man and a woman. That gays deny their role in procreation for which we are given reproductive organs and choose sex with the same gender is not biological marriage

Dear Josephus,

<<births and deaths was developed in Western society by the Romans to keep a record of their citizens.>>

Romans also had slaves and gladiators - if we are to adopt their ways...

<<a mutually committed lifelong relationship between a man and a woman, as it gives security to their children.>>

The only security that exists in this world is the grave, yet relatively speaking, having more adults in the family is relatively more secure because if any of them dies or becomes infirm, the others can still raise the children and will be committed to doing so.

<<but marriage is a biological term>>

I was considering marriage a spiritual quality, but if as you claim that it is merely biological, then why even think about it - nature can take care of itself!

Dear Suse,

'romantic rights'... they have that in North Korea: if you work especially hard and please the regime, you are given a prize, 3 nights with your spouse!

Are you suggesting that Australians too must beg their government for such rights rather than remain free to enjoy their romance as they please, unhindered by the state in the first place?

Yuyitsu, I doubt there is anything more romantic than a marriage ceremony.
At least mine was.

The state merely provides the paperwork to seal the deal... so I don't see why Gay people can't have the same deal.

And even more importantly, why would this act affect anyone else directly?
Children are happy in any family where they are loved and cared for, and heterosexual marriages do not always provide this, so the only issue I see as a true problem with marriage equality is a religious issue.

We should be encouraging our politicians to allow a conscience vote on the issue, as I don't believe the majority of them are against marriage equality in our thankfully increasingly secular society.

Suseonline, "I doubt there is anything more romantic than a marriage ceremony....The state merely provides the paperwork to seal the deal.."

It is just paperwork, huh? But not for the opportunity to have a fuss made over you though. Then you don't need to trash the Marriage Act do you? However gays can play dress up and have the occasion now. Nothing stopping them.

However your dismissiveness also betrays your contempt for the institution of marriage and all it represents for the that great bulk of the population who don't get to complete the cleverly scoped surveys of Getup.

Suseonline, "in our thankfully increasingly secular society"

I support secular government which we already have. PM John Howard was one of the very rare politicians to say that and act accordingly.
But from your posts you would go further to discourage Christian churches (not sure where you stand on Islamic mosques). Why then are you determined for gays to be married in the Christian churches you despise the churches so? It just doesn't figure, doe it?

The Netherlands has introduced gay marriage but very few gays have availed themselves of the opportunity provided to wed. This indicates that the large rump of gays would prefer that you let them alone and did not force State regulation of their relationships as has been done by de facto law changes and as you now propose, by overturning the Marriage Act. Is your concern really about gays? Or is it about the wishes of a few gay activists and a rump of Left 'Progressives' who believe that they always know what is best for others?

You do come across as pursuing secondary gain every time you advocate gay marriage. Examples being that you trash marriage as just being about paper, or 'love' and you always take the opportunity to disrespect your much hated Christian churches. A nasty child experience in a Catholic school maybe? The right of gays to conduct their own affairs without State regulation and State interference is collateral damage, but your target is the Roman Catholic Church?

Dear Suse,

<<I doubt there is anything more romantic than a marriage ceremony>>

I can only second that, but is there anything so unromantic as the couple, straight after the touching ceremony, disappearing into a back-room to sign papers?

<<The state merely provides the paperwork to seal the deal...>>

A marriage deal is already sealed in heaven. If it is indeed sealed, then there is no need for paperwork and if it is not, then no paperwork will do it.

<<so I don't see why Gay people can't have the same deal.>>

Sure, I totally agree, all people, gay and shy alike, heterosexuals, homosexuals, asexuals and all the rest, should have the same deal - no paperwork at all.

<<so the only issue I see as a true problem with marriage equality is a religious issue.>>

Nothing to do with religion really, only with the misinterpretation of religion. Religious progress can only be made by freely and personally submitting oneself to austerities - nobody external can get you closer to God by forcing you to do anything or denying you the freedom to do whatever you want.

<<We should be encouraging our politicians to allow a conscience vote on the issue>>

If they had a conscience, they would have already been using it!

<<as I don't believe the majority of them are against marriage equality in our thankfully increasingly secular society.>>

The majority of them aren't for or against any principle other than keeping their seats and acquiring the higher chair of a minister or PM. They say whatever they opportunistically believe may buy them votes, including church-goer votes (thus corrupting that church), if it helps them to keep their back-side warmly glued to their chair.

Politicians belong to the realm of Asuras (Titans), described as:

"Always desiring to be superior to others, having no patience for inferiors and belittling strangers; like a hawk, flying high above and looking down on others, and yet outwardly displaying justice, worship, wisdom, and faith -- this is raising up the lowest order of good and walking the way of the Asuras." (from http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/tp/Six-Realms-of-Existence.htm)

those calling for a conscience vote or referendum are not sincere. Look at what happened in California when the people voted against perverting the marriage act. The left wing nuts then screamed to twisted judges who overturned the will of the people.

Elected politicians are there to represent the views of their electorates. Gay marriage has been batted around the Senate over and over by the Greens, displacing more urgent business. Recently all from both Houses were required to go back and ascertain the opinion in their electorates, which they dutifully did. The result was that the Marriage Act was confirmed as it was.

It is because some gay activists and Left 'Progressives' do not respect the democratic process and accept the democratic decision that they are now demanding a 'conscience' vote, while hoping to sledge and embarrass anyone who disagrees with their view on the subject. The fact is that even if a conscience vote went against the said activists they would still not accept the democratic decision.

Returning to 'conscience' votes, that would be the near opposite of what elected representatives are required to do in a democracy, which id to represent the opinion and good of the electorate that elected them.

In any event, the activists and Left who are demanding a conscience vote would be highly critical of any politician whose conscience produced a decision that was opposite to their own. Imagine if those the activists decry as 'religious', actually lived up to the Left's (usually wrong) expectation and votes accordingly.

Roll on September '13.

Dear oh dear.

As I've stated time and time again - our
conversations must shift away from the
mass infantile finger-pointing that now
pervades it. It isn't the Left or the
Right who are ruining this country.
It's the tendency on so many people's parts
to think that their way is the right way and that
people who disagree with them are bad.

Disagree with each other by all means - and argue
logically without stooping to personal insults
or congratulate those who have the wisdom to
see things our way.

I enjoy this Forum - (obviously) and it does make
me re-think many things. However I stop reading
someone's post once I see that it degenerates
into disrespect and insults. We sometimes forget
that there are people behind the computers.

.

Love and marriage ...

.

It is a common feature in the animal kingdom for males to compete for the right of access to females for mating purposes.

The instauration of marriage civilised this process.

Political rulers used marriage to create strategic alliances and consolidate their political power.

The aristocracy, the elite, the wealthy and other privileged classes used it, and continue to do so, in order to avoid natural dispersion and depletion of their earthly estates and privileges throughout succeeding generations.

The clergy seized on the institution of marriage as a means of increasing their influence and control over their "flock" of submissive "sheep" and its future progeny, thus assuring the prosperity and perpetuity of their religions.

Arranged marriages, forced marriages and marriage by mutual consent continue to coexist in the world today. More and more children are born outside of marriage (74% of all births in Columbia in 2011, 69% in Peru, 68% in Chile, 58% in Argentina, 55% in Norway and Mexico, 54.2% in Sweden,47.3% in the UK, 40.8% in the US, 34% in Australia).

Motivations for marriage by mutual consent are multiple: emotional, sexual, economic/financial/tax reasons, acquisition of citizenship, religious, moral, social obligations and advantages, pregnancy, possessiveness, friendship, pity, love ...

Love, defined as "unconditional selflessness" (Jeremy Griffith) or "to will the good of another" (Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas), is rarely, if ever, a motivation for marriage. What most people mistakenly call "love" is usually some form of "emotional gratification and/or sexual attachment, attraction, admiration, devotion, sense of achievement or well-being, harmony, friendship, personal pride or form of narcissism, a passing fancy, an instinctive impulse, or some other self-serving urge...".

Few are capable of true love or even aware of the correct meaning of the word. Love and marriage are , of course, totally independent of each other:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14890#256883

.

.

Continued ...

.

Marriage is an oral contract imposing legal rights and obligations, possibly completed by certain specific written terms and conditions signed and approved by the contracting parties.

Love is an attitude, a philosophy, with reference to a set of moral values, and a praxis based on this attitude, philosophy and set of moral values.

Marriage is subject to the constraints of society in terms of gender, age, religion, cast or social standing, ethnicity, sanity and various other cultural, social and political criteria.

Love is not. It is available to everybody, for anybody, without exclusion or restriction. It is unconditional, universal and unlimited.

It is because it is unconditional that it is not necessarily reciprocal. It expects nothing in return.

There is no such thing as temporary or partial love. Either it is total, eternal and indestructible or it is not.

That is why it is so exceptional.

.

The last person on earth you would ever want to talk to about life's everyday problems would have to be the likes of a Catholic priest. Imagine an ordinary bloke going to a priest with his problems;
Bloke; "Father I want to talk to you about the wife."
Priest; "Ah... I don't know much about wives. I've, ah...never had one."
Bloke; "Okay father I have another problem, the mortgage is a problem;"
Priest; "Ah... I don't know much about mortgages, I've, ah...never had a mortgage."
Bloke; "Okay father I do have another problems, its the kids."
Priest; "Ah... I don't know much about kids. I've, ah.... never had kids."
My point is do we as a society want to be dictated to by some old out of touch fools, such as those that run the Catholic Church. these nincompoops put themselves up as experts on everything from birth to death, all based on a fairytale book, and their own interpretation.

.

Continued ...

.

The track record of heterosexual marriages in Australia is extremely poor:

- There were 121 000 marriages but also 50 200 divorces in 2010.

- Roughly 50% of divorces each year impact on children aged less than 18 years

- 41% of all reported sexual assault victims were aged 0-14 years (Aust. Institute of Health & Welfare, 2009)

- 19% of women and 5.5% of men reported experiencing sexual violence since the age of 15 ( Aust. Bureau of Stats. survey, 2005)

- 25% of women experienced intimate partner physical violence at least once in their lifetime and in the last 12 months, 1995–2006 (UN Stats. Division:
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/Worldswomen/WW2010%20Report_by%20chapter%28pdf%29/violence%20against%20women.pdf)

- Family Violence costs Australia about $8 billion per year, a substantial proportion of which is borne by the victims themselves (Vic. Health, 2004)


According to a survey by The Aust. Institute of Criminology in 2003 :

- 20.8% of all homicides involve intimate partners. This represents approximately 76 homicide incidents within Australia each year.

- Over three-quarters (76.9%) of these intimate partner homicides involved a male offender and a female victim.

- Of these homicides, 65.8% occurred between current spouses or de-facto partners, whilst 22.6% occurred between separated/divorced spouses or
de facto partners.

- 10% occurred between current or former boy/girlfriends, and

- 2% occurred within same sex relationships

Even if there were to be just as much intimate partner violence in same sex marriage as there is at present in heterosexual marriage, at least the protagonists would be boxing in the same category !

On the basis of the latest available statistics, same sex relationships only count for 2% of all intimate partner homicides.

Also, about 50% of all heterosexual marriages today, end up in separation or divorce. The children end up living with a single sex parent, generally, the mother.

Same sex relationships have a far better track record than heteroxexual relationships.

Sounds like a better deal ... if you fancy that sort of thing ... maybe you could have a girl friend or a boyfriend on the side !

.

Banjo Paterson,
You give a lot of statistics that indicate the sad and disturbed state of human society. However perhaps statistics on gays indicate loosely formed sexual relationships that do not involve shared property and children so their emotional attachements are much looser and casual. Where children, pets and shared property are involved much more emotion is involved in separation. Children are a deciding factor in heterosexual marriages, as distinct from pets and property in dissolution of other forms of live in relationships.

Just as I said, here we have Father Jo an authority on gay people, where do you get your stats from, the pope. Most likely also believes in Moses and his ark.

.

Dear Josephus,

.

You wrote:

" ... perhaps statistics on gays indicate loosely formed sexual relationships that do not involve shared property and children so their emotional attachments are much looser and casual".

You may have a point there, Josephus. It's a question of conjecture for which I do not know the answer. However, judging from two very respectable gay couples I have been acquainted with in the course of my professional and social life, one female, the other male, they both "share" property just as many heterosexual couples do.

Neither couple has any children, nor domestic pets so far as I am aware.

I am obviously not witness to their intimacy but the two couples I have in mind have both been together now as long as my wife and I, and that is just on 45 years.

I certainly do not have the impression that " their emotional attachments are much looser and casual" than those of my wife and I, or of any other heterosexual couple we know.

They are perfectly integrated into society and live their lives discreetly and harmoniously like any other couple.

I agree that statistics alone are an insufficient basis for forming an enlightened opinion on the subject of same sex marriage. However, to ignore them is to deprive oneself of a certain number of objective facts.

Our natural (reproductive) instincts are activated immediately when the subject is raised. The large majority of us are programmed with heterosexual instincts and react accordingly, rejecting any suggestion of same sex relationships without giving it a proper hearing.

Statistics can help us lift the veil of our prejudices (nature's programme) and see reality more clearly.

This, together with all the other resources available to us (personal experiences and philosophy, information, intelligence, sense of humanity and moral values, exchange of different points of view with others whose opinions we respect, etc.) all allow us to formulate an informed opinion on the subject.

.

.

Dear Paul1405,

.

You wrote:

"Just as I said, here we have Father Jo an authority on gay people, where do you get your stats from, the pope. Most likely also believes in Moses and his ark".

As I think I am the only one to have posted 'stats" on this thread, I think you are referring to one of my posts.

However, there is a slight doubt in my mind because you ask " ... where do you get your stats from ? ... " whereas I indicated all my sources.

In view of this apparent contradiction, perhaps you would be kind enough to elaborate a little further on your question and I shall be delighted to do my best to reply.

In the meantime, I can indicate that none of the "stats" I quoted are from "the pope".

I am not sure if it is "the pope" or I who you suggest "Most likely also believes in Moses and his ark".

I have no idea what "the pope" believes in, but I do not exclude that possibility.

As for myself, my beliefs are extremely limited in number and I strive to reduce them even further, every day, and, wherever possible, replace them with scientific knowledge.

I am not aware of any conclusive scientific evidence regarding the historical existence of "Moses and his ark".

If you have any information on that, I should be pleased to hear of it.

.

Banjo Paterson,
I would not worry about Moses and his ark, as it was Noah who built the ark. Most ancient cultures have stories of Noah and the ark, so it is not just a Bible story.

If you want to catch a religious fruitcake, just refer to 'Moses and his ark'. Thank you Father Jo for that factual information, it was cousin Noah who sailed around in the ark. How do we know this to be true, not only do we have the Bible, we also have "ancient cultures" to tell us so, who ever they be. Should we take the views of people who believe in fair stories seriously? What do they have to say on the subject of gay marriage?

It was Noah his wife, his three sons and their wives that entered the ark 8 homosapiens. No homosexuals are mentioned entering the ark.

All birds and marsupials that bond for life propose to propagate their species, prepare their property, protect and provide for their offspring this is all a part of the organic process of life. It is called birth, marriage and death that preserves the species. In human society it is registered for the human State and the common good of commonunity.

That some men wish to lifelong insert their penis into their lovers bum and call it marriage degrades the term to defication. That a woman deny her biological reality and play for the rest of her life with dido's on another woman and call it marriage to be recognised by the State so that society celebrates that act is interferring in their private affairs that the State need not register.

Paul 1405,
I'm pretty sure the Pope sees the bible as a collection of allegories and parables like any sane, intelligent person does, only people with low intelligence take the bible literally and those who sneer at them only show up their own weakness of character by mocking those less fortunate.
That said, the Christian reason for opposing same sex marriage is stupid and mostly irrelevant, it's a dumb place to draw the line.
What a lot of people want to know is what's next for the progressives?
Their agenda is open ended and thus far I've got no reply on what the next step will be for "Gays" once they have the right to marry, to have IVF and to adopt? We also want to know will married men, fathers and their children then be treated equally under the law or will the same negative presumptions about masculinity apply?
What happens for example when Police are called to a domestic disturbance involving two men and their children?
How will male married couples be treated in custody disputes?
I see a lot of positives for men and boys in general flowing from Gay marriage, our human rights will no doubt have an elevated profile when militant gays and their kids are being dragged through the family court meat grinder, but a lot of trouble is on the way for Lesbians and Feminists, particularly the ones currently in power.
Under the present system men and boys are second class citizens, that's all going to have to change if increasing numbers of men are going to be marrying and raising families of their own.

"the bible as a collection of allegories and parables" That is the way I see it. As for those who take the bible literally, I don't think it necessarily flows that they are of "low intelligence" its more likely they have developed a steadfast belief that it is all literally true. I don't know what the pope thinks, nor do I care.
Father Jo said; "It was Noah his wife, his three sons and their wives that entered the ark 8 homosapiens. No homosexuals are mentioned entering the ark." I'm sure if pressed Father Jo could even give us their names." Yes Jay I am guilty of that sin, I did throw a bit of bait at Father Jo "Moses and his ark." and he took it hook, line and sinker, it was rather flippant of me to have done so.
I could pose the question are those who believe in astrology of "low intelligence" maybe naive but I don't think it reflects on their level of intelligence.
Jay you said; "gays and their kids are being dragged through the family court meat grinder," Family break up regardless of who the "parents" are can often be a bitter affair particularly when children are involved. I don't think by legalising gay marriage that we will see "increasing numbers of men are going to be marrying and raising families of their own."

We have visited this issue many times, but this is by far the poorest discussion so far.
Paul1405 is content to attack the messenger, and the Catholic Church, and to show utter disdain for all persons of religious conviction (whilst totally disregarding the views of the vast majority of humanity regarding 'marriage').
And the only factual commentary on the actual subject Paul1405 can offer is:
> I don't think by legalising gay marriage that we will see "increasing numbers of men are going to be marrying and raising families of their own."<
B marvellous. After all the puffing and blowing, that's it - "I don't think"... Damn right.

It is telling that with all the real problems facing the world, including our own future national integrity, we should be wasting our time, our leaders' time, and our resources debating such an issue. A true sign of Western 'decadence' for all those fighting real survival battles to scoff at.
What would the imams or mullahs make of it, I wonder?

We profess to pursue a viable and vital multicultural society, and the reasonable assimilation of peoples of many cultural, ethnic and religious backgrounds, but with this issue we spit in the face of the views and sensitivities of so many new and prospective arrivals, including those just visiting.
Two-faced? (Or just insensitive and idiotic?)
Who is actually pushing this barrow? Anglo-saxon xenophobes, or free-love fruit-cakes?

The integrity of a society is determined by its majority adherence to reasonable, if not high moral and ethical values, and with this issue we are addressing a serious challenge to acceptable majority societal structure. It is clear that many in our society have little if any moral conviction, but that does not mean we should drag our whole society down to the level of the binge-drinkers and football idiots.
It may be of no consequence for NZ, California or the Netherlands to set themselves apart from the bulk of humanity, and be a laughing stock, but we should have more sense than to follow their arrogant and foolish example.

Saltpetre; Those that don't think are those that allow themselves to be lead blindly by the criminals behind organized religions.
So with your comment;
"It is clear that many in our society have little if any moral conviction, but that does not mean we should drag our whole society down to the level of the binge-drinkers and football idiots." is that haw you see a debate on gay marriage, binge drinkers and football idiots.
Then you say we should only debate important issues "we should (not) be wasting our time, our leaders' time, and our resources debating such an issue (gay marriage)" who should be determining what is and what isn't an important issue for debate? How would these lesser issues be determined without debate, from the bible as passed to us all from on high.
So the debate is being pushed by Anglo-Saxon xenophobes, or free-love fruit-cakes?
If we can't rely on the Anglo-Saxon xenophobes opinions on gay marriage, pray tell me who's opinions can we rely upon, pedophilic church leaders, and/or other religious fruitcakes with their holy book? The group in society opposed to gay marriage seems mostly those with some kind of religious conviction, should it be that on all so called moral issues, it is the view of the religious that should prevail?

.

Homosexuality & Marriage ...

.

The terms "homosexual" and "heterosexual" were coined by Karl-Maria Benkert in 1868 to describe same-sex sexual attraction and sexual behaviour in humans. He was born in Vienna, Austria and became a Hungarian journalist, memoirist, and human rights campaigner.

Benkert had a close friend who was homosexual. This young man killed himself after being blackmailed by an extortionist. Benkert later recalled that it was this tragic episode which led him to take a close interest in the subject of homosexuality, following what he called his "instinctive drive to take issue with every injustice."

Twelve countries, Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden, allow same-sex couples to marry nationwide. It is currently being legalised in France.

The Netherlands was the first country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage. It did so on 1st April 2001.

In March 2006, Statistics Netherlands released estimates on the number of same-sex marriages performed in each year: 2,500 in 2001, 1,800 in 2002, 1,200 in 2004, and 1,100 in 2005.

The Protestant Church in the Netherlands permitted individual congregations to decide whether or not to bless such relationships as a union of love and faith before God, and in practice many churches now conduct such ceremonies.

Most major religions oppose same-sex marriage. However, a number of progressive and liberal Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, and Hindus, as well as modern Hindu communities and Buddhism in Australia support it.

A question many of us ask ourselves is ... is homosexuality socially constructed or given by nature ? Is it natural or unnatural ? Here is some evidence :

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

Josephus wrote (bottom of page 6 on this thread) :

"That some men wish to lifelong insert their penis into their lovers bum and call it marriage degrades the term to defecation".

Which raises the question: "Is the act of sodomy practised exclusively by homosexuals or do heterosexuals also practise it ?"

Unfortunately, I have no statistics on that.

.

The marriage ceremony and celebration contains many symbolic examples of the female been given to the male by her parents of whom her father is the consenting representative for the purpose of forming a lifelong sexual union. Opportunity is given for anyone to challenge the union as she may already be in a union with someone else of carrying someone else's child unbeknown to the proposed husband. The lifting of the veil of the bride for her husband to kiss her is symploic of the opening of the vagina to form the marriage union. They are publicly announced as husband and wife by the person officiating so no one can now make a claim against them and celebrate with them their decision to unite as one human body.

If it is the ceremony and celebration gays want in their union call it somthing else; but it is not marriage forming one human body with all human biological potential to give birth from within the union.

>>"Is the act of sodomy practised exclusively by homosexuals or do heterosexuals also practise it ?"

Unfortunately, I have no statistics on that.<<

Sodomy is practiced by heterosexuals. I've seen the video evidence.

Statistics are understandably difficult to come by.

Cheers,

Tony

Regardless of whether sodomy is practised by some heterosexuals or not, the rectum was never made for penetration by a penis or any other object. There are risks of mechanical injury. As well, the anus is full of bacteria. It is rated as the riskiest sex,

http://www.webmd.com/sex/anal-sex-health-concerns

People choose to indulge in all manner of ill-advised behaviours. Given the hugely increased risk of STIs such as HIV from anal sex and particularly with bisexuals, women should be protecting their lives and future children by refusing sex in such cases.

A good argument could be made for making it obligatory for anyone who practices bisexuality to declare that to his proposed sexual partner, such is the risk to the otherwise unwitting woman. It is simply not good enough to wear a condom because it can come adrift or fail.

While all agree there should be tolerance of homosexual preferences, society and especially vulnerable children should not be sledged to 'love' the sexual practices that go with it. The intolerance of Tolerance by Don Carson, is worth listening to,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PVJlnvVeSM

onthebeach

science goes out the window when it comes to wanting to condone perversion. Science then becomes fashionable when wanting to rip a country off with a carbon tax. This arguement is about emotional blackmail and trying to justify the unjustifable by bully tactics. Marriage is simple between a man and woman. Always was and always will be.

Well yes, it has been confirmed a number of times that the will of the Australian people is maintain the Marriage Act as it is. The manipulation of the media by the 'Progressives' is anti-democratic. When will No be accepted as No?

On divisive social issues like this we have to ask ourselves is it good for our society, is it bad, or of no consequence either way?
There is backing in all three categories, plus a fourth - the 'I don't care' apathetic segment.
Those backing the 'good' say it is a human rights and anti-discrimination issue, making everyone equal in the eyes of the State.
Those backing the 'bad' say it demeans marriage as we know it (or is an affront to it, from a religious faith point of view), and has child-rearing and social-structure implications.
Meanwhile the State sits on the fence, calling it a 'conscience' issue.

But, what is the potential objective of the gay lobby?
If 'marital union' between non-heterosexuals (with virtually all the attendant rights of a 'marriage' under the law) is insufficient to satisfy the interests of the gay lobby for 'equality', one has to suspect that there is really a second agenda, an interest vested in secrecy.
My assessment is that this undeclared agenda may be to open otherwise restricted access to surrogacy and IVF services, and at the expense of the State. Now, is this a social/societal question, or an economic one? It may be both, since general access to surrogacy is also currently in question, but why so? From a social/societal, economic, legal, or ethical standpoint - or all of these?

Perhaps it just comes down to 'family'. Marriage is in decline, divorce and single-parentage increasing, and many children caught in the middle, including young impressionable children.
The statistics for heterosexual partnerships are not good, but those for non-heterosexuals are demonstrably far worse.
So, what could be done to improve marital stability, or is this even in our interest, or that of the children?
Gay 'Marriage' - beneficial, or an un-needed and potential further risk to an already eroded concept of marriage and of 'family'?
You know my answer.

It is hip to have an Ellen friend and soooo very 'Progressive' to promote something that irks Christian churches and undermines that cultural inheritance from Europe and from England in particular that is so hated by the Left.

The Gillard government is adamant that it removed all discrimination against gays through over eighty changes to legislation. No-one was consulted of course. It was all done in the back rooms, which is typical for this government.

'Progressives' and gay activists, none of whom can claim any majority of support from even gays themselves for the intrusions of the State into gay relationships through de facto legislation, must be congratulating their own cleverness over bullsh**ing people into believing there is discrimination where there isn't, and the government itself says not.

Now a conscience vote is mooted by Progressives and activists who cannot accept prior democratic decisions. No conscience vote is necessary because on 14 September 2013 the Australian electorate gets to clear the garbage out in Canberra. Unfortunately some Greens in the Senate will continue until another poll can remove that dross too.

The clock is ticking

.

Dear Josephus,

.

You wrote:

"The marriage ceremony and celebration contains many symbolic examples ...".

According to historians, marriage evolved about 20,000 years ago, well before the advent of the current major religions. It predates recorded history.

The way in which it is conducted and its rules and ramifications have changed over time, as has the institution itself, depending on the culture.

Each religion has elaborated its own rituals and these usually vary from one denomination to another within the same religion.

Marriage, of course, is a social union and a legally binding contract, whether oral or written or both. In the Western world, it can be performed in a secular civil ceremony or in a religious setting, or both.

However, There is no civil marriage in many Middle Eastern countries like Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Libya, Mauritania, as well as in Indonesia, Iran and Israel, among others; all marriages are conducted by religious authorities, and are registered by civil authorities only after having been registered by authorities of officially approved religions.

In most European countries there is a civil ceremony requirement. Following the civil marriage ceremony, couples are free to marry in a religious ceremony. Such ceremonies, however, only serve to provide a religious recognition of the marriage, since the state's recognition has already been given. In some of these countries (e.g. Belgium, the Netherlands and Turkey) most couples marry without any religious ceremony.

Civil weddings are usually quite simple and involve no ritual apart from the tradition, if the couple so desire, of placing a wedding ring on the finger of the bride and, possibly, on the finger of the groom as well.

In some cultures, wedding rituals can be quite elaborate, involving betrothal ceremonies one year in advance of the actual wedding which lasts several days.

In view of the evolutive history of religious ceremonies over the centuries, it can be anticipated that those religious communities which accept gay marriage would adapt their ritual as deemed appropriate.

.

.

Dear onthebeach,

.

You wrote:

"It is hip to ... promote something that irks Christian churches and undermines that cultural inheritance from Europe and from England in particular ..."

Our cultural heritage is all you say it is but it is a little broader and a little deeper than that. It is not just Anglo-Celtic.

Australia is not the British Isles. It is a vast continent. Our mental structure is not the same as that of people who live on a small island. It has evolved over eight generations into a different perspective.

We are not in Europe. We are in Asia. We are the descendents of the white slaves deported from the UK as free labour to develop this British colony - those whom we euphemistically call "the first settlers" - whose arrival we celebrate on Australia Day. Those who continue to be resented by the aborigines for having deprived them of their fatherland - white victims forced upon black victims.

We raped them and had children. We gave their children to white families and it became a vast melting pot. The gold rushes brought new waves of immigrants to Australia, mainly from our Asian neighbours.

After the second war, 6.5 million migrants from 200 nations brought immense new diversity, and we Australians became increasingly aware that we were not just Anglo-Celts but also of other origins and cultures, particularly Asian.

In 2011 China replaced the UK as the number one supplier of immigrants. In 2012, India replaced China.

They did not come empty handed. They brought with them, as we did for our predecessors, the aborigines, new sources of cultural inheritance.

We are no longer all Christians. We no longer all have that genetic attachment to the British Crown.

Times are a changing and we, Australians, are changing with them. Our principal trading partners today are China, Japan, USA and South Korea, in that order.

Let's face it: we are orphans, lost in the Pacific Ocean - with fond memories of our lost inheritance - unless, of course, our Anglo-Celt ancestors got kicked-out without one !

.

' According to historians, marriage evolved about 20,000 years ago, well before the advent of the current major religions. ' Beleive that you are likely to believe the gw fantasy. Next we will be being told that apes and man married in defense of bestiality.

WHAT IS IT HOMOSEXUALS WANT BY MARRIAGE?
1. To be legally recognised as partners?
2. To be recognised as partners by Centerlink?
3. To have their sexuality recognised as marriage by a contract of the State?
4. To have a ceremony in a Church?
5. To have access to IVF?
6. To have the right to adoption?
7. To have the right of surrogacy?
8. To be recognised as married by society?
9. To have their partners recognised equally with married spouse?
10.To have their sexuality recognised by the Church? as legitimate?

All this given and they are still not equal as they cannot produce children of their relationship. They are not biologically able to actually marry to produce another human.

Dear Runner,

.

You wrote:

[' According to historians, marriage evolved about 20,000 years ago, well before the advent of the current major religions. ' Beleive that you are likely to believe the gw fantasy. Next we will be being told that apes and man married in defense of bestiality.]

I guess it's just another instance where reality surpasses fiction.

Who could have imagined that man first felt the need to pacify the mating process, by inventing monogamy and marriage before turning his attention, several thousands years later, to sorting out the chaotic stockpile of gods he had imagined, by inventing monotheism ?

It must have been a question of priorities. First things first. And as we all well know, there is a time for everything.

But, quite frankly, I don't think it's all that important. Sometimes harsh reality is simply too tough to face, so why should we ?

Don't worry, Runner. You just carry on believing whatever it is you prefer, that you can live with, and fits in with your world view. Illusions were made for that.

It's no skin off anybody's nose and you can rest assured I'm not going to let the cat out of the bag ! Who cares ?

.

>>All this given and they are still not equal as they cannot produce children of their relationship. They are not biologically able to actually marry to produce another human.<<

I'm confused Josephus. My brother has a vasectomy so he and his wife cannot produce children of their relationship. They cannot produce another human unless they decide to create a Lavis's Monster. But that doesn't sound like them. I definitely remember their wedding even if I can't remember all of the reception. It was in a church with the traditional vows and the priest pronounced them man and wife etc.

Are they married or not?

I'm also confused when you say 'marry to produce another human'. If marriage is the biological activity required to produce another human - although I'm pretty certain it's not - then how did all the SINGLE teenage mums pushing prams around my town come to be impregnated?
Parthenogenesis?

Cheers,

Tony

.

Dear Josephus,

.

You wrote:

" WHAT IS IT HOMOSEXUALS WANT BY MARRIAGE? ... (followed by 10 suggestive questions) ... All this given and they are still not equal as they cannot produce children of their relationship. They are not biologically able to actually marry to produce another human".

I measure of the sincerity of your incomprehension. It is evident, honest and sympathetic.

My incompetence in such matters is no less than yours, perhaps even greater. My personal opinion is all I have to offer.

It seems to me that same-sex couples cannot possibly ignore the fact that science is currently unable to allow them to reproduce and that there is no indication it will achieve any such capability in the foreseeable future. I am sure they are perfectly aware, as you rightly indicate, that " they are still not equal" to heterosexual couples in this respect.

I conclude that it is not the perspective of producing their own children that motivates their desire for marriage.

The theory that "all men are created equal" has no practical biological, physiological, psychological or even sociological application. The reality, as I see it, is that "all men are created unequal". But that does not prevent anybody, including same-sex couples, from aspiring to "equal rights" - which could well be a possible motivation.

As for your ten questions and, perhaps, many more, I suspect the answers would probably be the same as for the question: " What is it heterosexuals want by marriage?"

In the case of my wife and I, for example, we both had previous experiences outside of wedlock with various partners before we married. Our marriage was the symbolical act we performed in order to distinguish this relationship from all others, marking its special nature. It was the symbol of our union.

However, I am not so naïve as to imagine that all heterosexual marriages have this as their sole motivation. I am sure there may be many others, including the 10 you suggest.

I see no reason why the motivations for same-sex marriages should be any different.

.

Don't worry, Runner.

Your reasoning leaves me very secure Banjo. Cheers.

Almost all of this from both sides is irrelevant to the great majority of Australians who wanted discrimination against gays deterred, and the Gillard government has already staked its claims to removing all discrimination against homosexuals with over eighty laws changed.

Either Julia Gillard, Jenny Macklin and other senior ministers of the Gillard government have lied, or what they claim is true, that all discrimination has indeed been removed. Like most others, I believe the Gillard government on this. The proof is that the Marriage Act as it is and should remain is not discrimination according to both the government and the Human Rights Commission.

The thrust for gay marriage is coming from political 'Progressives', well represented in the Greens protest party chateau chardonnay crew, and that is for their secondary agenda of undisclosed social change. The fact is that the numbers of gays and of gay activists seeking gay marriage are few. Probably lesbians get more gain than males. The few homosexuals who can look forward to large financial gain are few (examples being through family law and superannuation), but they are very vocal and assertive (they can afford to be!). All homosexuals have lost already through the State becoming involved in determining their relationship status through defacto 'initiatives'

As far as the broader community is concerned the Marriage Act should not be violated and if some gays want a similar arrangement then fine, have another Act to suit.

But the political 'Progressives' would not be content with that because it does not deliver the secondary gain they seek elsewhere and few 'Progressives' believe that marriage is a worthwhile institution anyhow. That is the very large elephant in the room, gay marriage is for the secondary agenda of political 'Progressives', and it is just a convenient stepping stone for other social change. The political 'Progressives' always know what is best for others and that goes without saying.

Sorry, I've lost the link but some may not have seen the article from which I c/p this snippet
For some reason it makes me think of ' custom made to measure' perfect babies, clones perhaps?
[Legislation has been filed in California that would require group insurance to cover gay and lesbian infertility treatments just as they do heterosexual. But, AB 460 isn’t limited to a finding of actual infertility. Nor does it require that gays and lesbians have tried to conceive or sire a child using heterosexual means, natural or artificial. Rather as with heterosexual couples merely the inability to get pregnant for a year while having active sexual relations is sufficient to demonstrate need for treatment, meaning if the bill becomes law, it would require insurance companies to pay for services such as artificial insemination, surrogacy, etc. for people who are actually fecund. Indeed, since the bill prevents discrimination based on marital or domestic partnership status, theoretically every gay and lesbian in the state could be deemed infertile for purposes of insurance coverage merely by the fact that they don’t wish to engage in heterosexual relations.
Will insurance policies be required to cover infertility treatments without discrimination on the basis of age, ancestry, color, disability, domestic partner status, gender, gender expression, gender identity, genetic information, marital status, national origin, race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation. Indeed, it is probably a matter not of whether, but of when.]
That’s no way to contain health care costs!

.

Dear onthebeach,

.

If there's no problem, I guess there's no need to fix it.

.

Dear saussie,

.

I worked in insurance all my working life and I can assure you that the industry knows how to defend its own interests, including in respect of any planned new legislation.

I wouldn't worry about it if I were you.

.

To all & sundry,

.

France became the 14th country in the world and the 9th in Europe to legalise same-sex marriage yesterday. The new law was passed by the House of Representatives by an overwhelming majority.

The new French law allows same-sex couples to adopt children if they so desire.

Michel Rocard, a former, highly respected prime minister, was quoted as saying that "homosexuals are normal people who have the particularity of preferring people of the same sex as themselves".

He added that the new law finally settled a long outstanding, historical problem.

.

The Ratbag Religious Right in France put up a violent protest against the bill, but have been defeated. There was much peaceful protest in support.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-24/joy-anger-as-france-legalises-same-sex-marriage/4647648

Closer to home, good to Barry O'Farrell defy his federal leader The Mad Monk and come out in support of gay marriage.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/ofarrell-comes-out-for-samesex-marriage-20130418-2i31b.html

.

Dear Paul1405,

.

You wrote:

"The Ratbag Religious Right in France put up a violent protest against the bill, ... ".

I do not have any statistics on the number of "ratbags" in France nor in any other country for that matter. What I do know is that "ratbags" are usually to be found in large numbers at the extremes of any movement of contestation or protestation irrespective of what it is that is being contested.

A senior police commissioner received a paving stone ( a "pavé", in French) on the head during the violent demonstrations in Paris to protest against the vote and was taken to hospital in serious condition.

I happen to have a similar "pavé" (in solid granite) in my home, here in Paris, that weighs 1.85 kilos, so you can imagine what that could do to your head if it were thrown at you (my wife uses it to grill steaks).

It makes no difference to the police commissioner who threw the "pavé" or why. It could have been a "ratbag of the religious right" or any passing thug who did it just for fun. Next time, it could be a "ratbag of the religious left", a "ratbag of the political right", or "of the political left", some universal, multi-cause extremist, an opportunist, a hooligan, any thug, furious rebel, social outcast or other.

All the police commissioner knows is he received a "pavé" on the head and it floored him. It might even maim him for life.

Though a large majority of French people say they are Catholics, very few ever go to church.

There are about 40 000 Catholic churches and more and more are abandoned each year. Some are transformed into Muslim mosques.

Though there are only about 4.5 million Muslims in France compared to 41.6 million French citizens who declare themselves to be Catholics, there are 2.5 million practicing Muslims and only 1.9 million practicing Catholics.

The so-called " Ratbag Religious Right" identify themselves exclusively as Catholics - though it is unlikely they ever go to church.

.

I wish to make two points.
1. Marriage is not a human right, it is a responsibility to another person. That is why we need a contract and vows.
2. Homosexuals are normal people with a disoriented sexual preference. Most are very fertile and capable of producing children.

That some heterosexual couples are infertile or choose not to have children does not annul their marriage of becoming a completed human unit as the biological use of their sexual organs are bonded in marriage. The use of instruments or the bowel is not an act of biological marriage. Such is not, nor ever will be humanly equal to normal marriage of a man and a woman.

>>The use of instruments or the bowel is not an act of biological marriage.<<

You still haven't explained what this 'biological marriage' business is Josephus. It's not mentioned anywhere in the books or websites I've looked at. One of the waitresses at work is 3rd year med. students so she knows a fair bit about human biology. I asked her if she'd ever heard of marriage being used in a biological context but she hadn't.

As far as I can work out 'biological marriage' seems to be your personal euphemism for vaginal sex. I'd advise you find a new euphemism or drop it altogether - I think we're all sufficiently adult to be neither titillated nor offended by the phrase 'vaginal sex' - because you seem to be conflating your euphemism with marriage and confusing the two. They're obviously not the same; marriage means sharing your whole life together not just your not naughty bits. Since I'm unmarried I only have sex with unmarried women.

Cheers,

Tony

Father Jo; "Homosexuals are normal people with a disoriented sexual preference. Most are very fertile and capable of producing children."
It is your opinion about disoriented sexual preference, the point about very fertile, it may be so, or it may not be so, what is the relevance? I could apply the same to Catholic clergy and their unnatural vow of
celibacy, which leads to the 'sin' of self gratification. Do you see celibacy as normal?

Do you see celibacy as normal?
NO!

The biological design of male and female reproductive organs when united form a marriage of a human unit. "The two shall become one human flesh", which has been the case since humans appeared on the Earth.

Josephus,

We've been through this before (when you used to be Philo)

The biological union of man and women is called "sex".

The "social" (not biological) union of man and woman is called "marriage".

>>The biological design of male and female reproductive organs when united form a marriage of a human unit.<<

Bullsh!t. Marriage is not and has never been a biological term - you're the only one who uses marriage in a biological context and you're not a biologist so you don't get a say in what jargon they use. You are a liar. Why is that you can't argue the case on its facts and feel the need to tell lies instead?

Cheers,

Tony

How did you define your own marriage Poirot, assuming that you were once married? What contractual performances and accountabilities did you expect of your spouse?

Do you define it in the casual, no responsibility or accountability terms of the 'Progressives' advocating gay marriage, and they hope an end to what they regard as an outmoded, patriarchical institution one day?

-'Marriage' as simply a public declaration of 'love'. 'Love' being up for the convenient interpretation of the user.

I am not a betting person, but I would lay London to a brick that when your lawyers said good riddance on your behalf to your previous spouse and sought the lioness's share of the assets and provision for your future they applied a far broader and deeper definition of that marriage you scorn as just a public, attention-seeking declaration of 'love'.

Gays will come to reget being railroaded into de facto family law and marriage by a few noisy activists and the much larger rump of the push, the bossy, controlling, 'we-always-know-what-is-best-for -you' "Progressives".

Just think, all of those gays who were previously able to enter into and dissolve whatever relationships they liked at their will and choosing. But now the 'Progressives' have decreed that gays must kow tow to State regulation of their affairs, and the State can tell them whether they are in de facto relationships or not.

The 'gay sympathetic' lawyers, and the feminists so well represented in the 'Progressives' must be secretly applauding their own cleverness. On one hand the 'Progressives' say they are opposed to marriage and State interference in the bedroom, yet on the other they are corralling gays into the institution they say they hate and would do away with if they could. Hypocrisy.

onthebeach,

Who said I scorned marriage?

I merely pointed out to Josephus that the act of marriage was a social act and not a biological one.

But I'll make allowances for you as you appear to have a penchant for ascribing views, experiences and words to people which they do not hold, have or say respectively.

People who have casual sexual affairs with women and use them no better than prostitutes and are incapable of making a lifelong committment to any; have no right to determine what is responsible social policy on marriage.

Yes marriage is a social commitment, but of what? It is an exclusive mutual loving sexual relationship that is for life that is declared publicly. That is the social aspect of marriage, the actual marriage is not consumated till they both are sexually united. As I have said before marriage like birth and death are a biological and organic event. That two people live together in a social union and never had sex is not marriage. That brothers and sisters, or two sisters or live in housekeeper etc are not classed as husband a wife or as married. The marriage contract itself registered by the State is not the marriage, nor the saying of vows they only represent the mutual committment to marriage.

Quite reasonably, I asked for your definition of marriage. Simple enough for most, but a slippery thing for a 'Progressive'.

Sorry Josephus, my reply above was intended for Poirot.

onthebeach,

You're not "entitled" to a response simply because you ask a question.

Especially when you resort to all kinds of loaded and imaginative assumptions.

You obviously have different definition of "reasonable", Mr (adversarial) onthebeach. The flavour of your posts to me are always of a similar rancorous tone - as was the last.

Not something I'm inclined to respond to with warmth or length.

Poirot,

OK, so it was too hard for you to give your definition of marriage. You got angry instead. Tres girly. Do you find that ever works BTW?

However you are a strong advocate for State regulation of gay relationships, both de facto and by marriage, which means that the State's family law also applies to gays when they break-up, right? In fact there would be no aspect of their personal relationships that would now escape possible State interference and courts.

As a leftie 'Progressive' and a feminist, but not a lesbiam(?) - you are all of those wouldn't you agree - you decree from on high that all gay relationships MUST be oversighted and regulated by the State. Even though you cannot define your concept of marriage. Or at least the definition of the marriage that you would find acceptable when applied to yourself.

You can eschew the rude outbursts and answer the simple questions. After all, you do insist on telling gays how they should toe the line and cop further State regulation of their affairs.

What a strange little adversarial person you are, onthebeach...with a particular liking to pick arguments where none exist.

Let's have a peek at your latest effort shall we....

"You got angry instead..."

Really? Pray tell, Where did I get angry?

Disabusing antagonistic posters (like yourself) of their erroneous assumptions is not getting angry.

"However, you are a strong advocate for State regulation of gay relationships..."

I have revealed no such view...and you should stop making things up and attributing your fiction to other posters.

"...you decree from on high that all gay relationships MUST be oversighted and regulated by the state...."

Again, a hostile assertion based on sweet nothing...you should stop making things up and attributing your fiction to other posters.

"After all, you do insist on telling gays how they should toe the line and cop further State regulation of their affairs."

onthebeach, I'll cut you a bit of slack and presume you've got me mixed up with someone else on this thread, because I have said nothing of the sort. Before you fired your bellicose diatribe in my direction, the only comment I'd made on this thread was a couple of lines to Josephus about biological imperatives versus social regarding marriage,

If, as I strongly suspect, you are just trying to pick an argument by imputing whatever will do the trick, then I suggest that you should stop making things up and attributing your fictions to other posters.

(No I'm not a lesbian, but if the world only provided puerile pugnacious men like you, then I probably would be:)

Are you or are you not a supporter of gay marriage? Yes or no.

If you are, then it is only reasonsble to ask you to define what marriage means to you. That is what you are baulking at. But Why?
Where you demand it for others you should be prepared to answer that simple question as a minimum. You need to go further too, to consider the consequences for them, particularly the unintended consequences.

You are not an angry person you say? Just re-read your posts. Perhaps it is your rhetorical strategy: you get angry and rude at others to duck their questions.

onthebeach,

I recall you've pulled this stunt on me before...before ducking out squeaking that I was rude to you (which is exactly the response you set out to engender)

If you're determined to pick an argument where none formerly existed, then that's your prerogative.

You, my sweet, are the angry aggressor who stuck his nose into my response to Josephus.

I'm not balking at anything. If I thought for a moment you were genuine in your inquiry and not just playing out your need to antagonise your latest target (moi:) then I would bother to give you an answer.

But carry on....don't think, however, that I'll take your cheek lying down.

Poirot,

Two simple questions:

Are you or are you not a supporter of gay marriage? Yes or no.

If you are, then it is only reasonsble to ask you to define what marriage means to you.

You baulk at answering and being accountable, trying to make me your excuse. This is a discussion forum. You can't just seagull: fly in and fly out, leaving a deposit behind as you are inclined to do. It is your choice though.

It has been propose by Tony Windsor that a second referendum take place in September to allow the people to decide the question of gay marriage. Like most Greens I agree with Windsor's proposal.
Naturally, we could expect the cashed up Catholic Church to lead the no vote, with Archy Pell in the forefront of the negative campaign. Pell will mobilise his band of pedophile priests to scream an hysterical NO from the pulpit. I see nothing wrong with that, its their right to free speech, bring it on.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/opinion/political-news/windsor-calls-for-gay-marriage-referendum-20130428-2imu6.html

>>It has been propose by Tony Windsor that a second referendum take place in September to allow the people to decide the question of gay marriage.<<

Tony Windsor should have paid more attention during his civics lessons and so should you Paul:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14924#257777

Cheers,

Tony

As the thread was started by Josephus...

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5746#160902

To settle several issues at one fell swoop shouldn't any plebiscite test public opinion of Josephus' view of marriage being legitimate only when it involves two people who have coitus (without interfemoris, interruptus or reservatus) with each other and no-one else during their entire lives?

.

Dear onthebeach & Poirot,

.

Your discussion reminds me an important aspect of the subject in hand which has not yet been evoked on this thread.

It is a common feature of nature that the males of animal species generally seek to dominate the females and maintain them in captivity. We human beings are no exception to the rule. This prehistoric practice persists, even today, in certain cultures in the Middle-East.

At the same time, men seem to harbour a deep-rooted inferiority complex with regard to women. Men try to dominate women but women are more powerful than men. Women can give birth. Men can't. Moreover, men's lives depend entirely on their mothers for far longer periods than for any other animal species.

As a result, the mother occupies a very special place in the psyche of men.

Men's vision of other women is even more complex. Not only are they intimidating by their unique potential to create, but they also possess the power to seduce and bewitch. And, to top it all off, they are "disgustingly impure".

And if women are strange creatures, what about homosexuals who are even stranger - neither totally men nor totally women ?

The female fruit is treacherous. Bisexuality, homosexuality, and asexuality are perceived as straight-out aggressions and a danger to mankind.

For some of us, it is as though they conjure up some sort of horrifying, bestial image like that of a hermaphrodite, which is totally unsupportable.

This needs to be understood and taken into account in our exchanges.

Mark Christensen, the author of the supporting article here, has identified the problem as being the enforcement of "civil rights". He considers "It is this message – not bigotry – that motivates much of the opposition to gay marriage."

Personally, I see quite a lot evidence that it is religion, not "civil rights", which motivates much of the opposition to gay marriage.

I suspect that this opposition has deep roots in men's inferiority complex with regard to the female sex and what some of us perceive as its derivatives or something worse.

.

Much of the argument against gay marriage is based on the perception that sexual acts performed by homosexuals are perverted therefore endorsing marriage between such a couple is in someway condoning this perversion. If that was true, then some in society could denounce heterosexual marriage in the same way, as it to may also involve perceived perverted acts. based on the antagonists moralistic view. Therefore any form of marriage can be denounced.
Tony what is that about civics? Is not a plebiscite of the people the ultimate act of a democracy.
plebiscite; a direct vote of the qualified voters of a state in regard to some important public question.

From the views and behaviour of some on this thread they would condone what they believe a human right to adultery, prostitution, group sexual orgies and bigamy as socially acceptable behaviour to be within what they believe of marriage. These persons are incompetent to give a socially responsible policy to the betterment of Australian society. They destroy loyalty, integrity and purity for self gratification which is not a basis for social health the raising of family and stability. We have too much hurt and hostility now in society with the cheap way many treat marriage.

onthebeach,

My initial "deposit, as you so graciously put it, was directed at Josephus, on the subject of social versus biological mechanisms

You then launched into a diatribe towards me, ascribing all kinds of views and opinions to my good self with absolutely no foundation.

Far from becoming angry, I'm more than fascinated by your apparent need to cook up an atmosphere of antagonism based solely on your own imaginings of what I represent.

I have no intention of responding to your "question". My initial contribution was to Josephus. The rest of my experience on this thread has been to address an extended and belligerent rant, built on nothing but your own creative imaginings.

You don't deserve a reply.....

........

Banjo Paterson,

Interesting points.

Have you read Camille Paglia's "Sexual Personae"?

(For the benefit of onthebeach and his fertile imagination, it's the only "feminist" book I've read a lot of - and she's a feminist who extols the the virtues of men and their contribution to civilisation)

Banjo - she discusses (particularly in Chapter 1) exactly the points in your post.

Cheers : )

Poirot,

That is just more of the same bluff to hide your refusal to answer two simple questions:

- Are you or are you not a supporter of gay marriage? Yes or no.

- If you are, then it is only reasonable to ask you to define what marriage means to you.

onthebeach,

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5746&page=0#160986

I'll leave you blustering away to yourself.

Perhaps you'll have better luck in provocation with someone else...I've got better things to do.

Banjo has really hit on something here; marriage is scary, for men as well as women - though much more scary for women in some cultures, where extensive means are employed, often with State sanction, to dis-empower women. No need to go into detail in this, we are all aware of child-marriage, FGM, restrictions on movement, education, employment, etc, and all the patriarchal trappings.

In our society women have power, and rightly so; they can say NO, refuse to get pregnant, have access to contraceptives and abortion, can choose to work, or not, and can entertain all manner of aspirations for and from marriage. However, this power is not absolute (and arguably still doesn't go far enough - particularly regarding domestic violence), but there are significant Family Law protections, some of which scare the hell out of men.

Hence the prenuptial, on either side (and reluctance to fully commit). Self-preservation. Powerful psychological and material forces are at play in a conventional 'marriage', particularly, and much more so, where children are involved. Marriage was never meant to be a 'lottery', but the odds against success have been increased over time by more liberal attitudes towards 'relationships', and their meaning, diminished commitment towards 'keeping only unto', and 'until death us do part', and liberal attitudes towards 'opting out'. Pros and Cons on both sides, but sad really in the end result.

There is nonetheless a strong fundamental attachment to this traditional, and perhaps most complex of all human relationships (genuine heterosexual marriage), many aspirations for improving the odds for its successful continuation, and an extreme reluctance to having its past success, value and virtue scoffed-at, besmirched and devalued by attempts to apply its inherent covenants to other forms of 'relationship' which it was never meant to encompass. Such would be akin in another setting to converting 'Lest We Forget' to 'Tough Titty'. Irreverent and obnoxious.

Some things are indeed 'sacred' and worthy of preserving as intended.
Look to the stars, not the street-lamps.

I have no wish to denigrate homosexual or GLBTI relationships, but a fish is not a fowl.

Saltpetre,
Well said. Totally in agreement.

Future Vision:
Certain men are selected to be sperm donors, certain women to be ovum donors, and certain women (or enhanced petri dish technology) employed as incubators of human (genetically enhanced?) embryos.
Everyone else will have their sexuality suppressed by chemical means or by sterilization, and will be allocated to work tasks according to mental and physical ability, and allocated housing, food and recreation based on contribution to State objectives.
Children will be raised in State-run creches, and subsequently trained in State-run educational, military, technology or trades institutions.
No child will be left behind; education will utilise media presentation as far as possible; human interaction strictly controlled.
Population and Environment optimised; cyber- or robo-pets allowed, with 'real' pets limited to a select elite; holidays to 'nature reserves' allocated by (State-controlled) ballot.
'Marriage' and all physical relationships relegated to 'history'.
Cyber recreation will be universal, monitored, and controlled.
Travel will be controlled and limited to public transportation; international conferences held only via cyber-forum; international and cross-border movement controlled and near-eliminated.
Voluntary Euthanasia will be universally adopted.
There will be no money, no 'wealth', no non-State assets; no war; no vested interest groups or movements; and criminals and 'reactionaries' will be placed in offshore detention with minimal provisions for survival.
Brave new non-humanist world, with unlimited Valium on tap.
Mood stabilizers will prevent most from praying for Armageddon.
Notions of ethnicity or 'culture' will be abolished.

Did I mention, 'Marriage' and all physical relationships will be relegated to 'history'? (Problem solved?)
Religion? You wish!

>>To settle several issues at one fell swoop shouldn't any plebiscite test public opinion of Josephus' view of marriage being legitimate only when it involves two people who have coitus (without interfemoris, interruptus or reservatus) with each other and no-one else during their entire lives?<<

That sounds like a capital idea WmTrevor but I wouldn't word the question like that because most people probably think coitus interruptus is one of the Unforgivable Curses.

>>Tony what is that about civics?<<

I'm pretty sure plebiscites aren't binding which means that a certain Liberal politician whose first name I'm unfortunate enough to share doesn't have to pay any attention to a 'yes' vote when he becomes PM in september. Can you really see Tony 'Mad Monk' Abbott letting the will of the public get in the way of him getting in the way of gay marriage? The other Tony takes his orders from a higher power than the great unwashed.

Cheers,

Tony

"The other Tony takes his orders from a higher power than the great unwashed."
Tony the other Tony, are you telling me Archy Pell takes a tub now and then? Is that with his clothes on, I know he doesn't support nudity.

.

Dear Paul1405 & Tony Lavis,

.

Paul wrote:

"Tony what is that about civics? Is not a plebiscite of the people the ultimate act of a democracy.
plebiscite; a direct vote of the qualified voters of a state in regard to some important public question."

Tony replied:

"I'm pretty sure plebiscites aren't binding which means that a certain Liberal politician whose first name I'm unfortunate enough to share doesn't have to pay any attention to a 'yes' vote when he becomes PM in september. Can you really see Tony 'Mad Monk' Abbott letting the will of the public get in the way of him getting in the way of gay marriage? The other Tony takes his orders from a higher power than the great unwashed."

"Plebiscite"(Online Etymology Dictionary):

"direct vote of the people," 1860 (originally in ref. to Italian unification), from Fr. plébiscite (1776 in modern sense), from L. plebiscitum "a decree or resolution of the people," from plebs (gen. plebis) "the common people" + scitum "decree".

In Australia, a non-constitutional referendum is usually called a plebiscite.

Also, it is interesting to note that, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the plural of referendum is referendums when only one issue is to be decided. Referenda necessarily connotes a plurality of issues.

In Australia, we usually vote "No" to referendums or plebiscites. Only 8 out of 44 have been carried since 1906.

In France, where I have been living for nearly half a century, the situation is pretty much the same. Voters usually seize on the occasion to say no to the president and/or the government irrespective of what the question may be.

It inevitably ends up as a "no confidence" vote to the politicians even though there may be a majority in favour of whatever is being put to the vote.

Only a small minority of conscientious voters actually vote on the question they are asked to vote on.

I guess that's what we call democracy.

Recourse to public opinion polls is probably the only way to find out what people truly think about any particular issue.

.

This website explains plebiscites and referendums very clearly:

http://parliamentflagpost.blogspot.com.au/2011/06/quick-guide-to-plebiscites-in-australia.html

Cheers,

Tony

onthebeach,
Do not expect a definition of what marriage means to a homosexual. Homosexuals and their supporters do not define marriage by the nature of their sexuality, they prefer to hide it and change the meaning of the word "marriage" to mean, "two people who love each other", as they have done by calling themselves "gay",whatever that now means. It does not mean a person who is joyous and happy, or a name of a girl. Their radical supporters love perversion of the language to hide the reality of the homosexuals life.

Josephus,

I hope you're not referring to onthebeach's inquiry of the meaning of marriage in my direction (coz I'm not a homosexual)....I declined to respond to him because of his rancourous demeanour.

And who made you the arbiter of who does or does not qualify to have an opinion of marriage?

.

Dear Poirot,

.

You wrote:

"Have you read Camille Paglia's "Sexual Personae"?

No, but I'm pleased to hear we have made the same analysis and arrived at similar conclusions.

.

Dear Saltpetre,

.

Thank you for sharing your "future vision" with us.

Aldous Huxley and his student George Orwell were not too far out. We'll see how you fare.

Though I suspect that the advent of the internet and social networks may somewhat thwart the sort of central control required for the global implementation of such homogenous scenarios.

.

Dear Tony Lavis,

.

Thank you for that interesting link to "A quick guide to plebiscites in Australia"

.

Dear Josephus,

.

You wrote:

"Do not expect a definition of what marriage means to a homosexual. ... "

I do not know if marriage means the same thing for everybody, whether they be homosexual or heterosexual or otherwise. I suspect it does not. Though many may share the same definition, irrespective of their sexual orientation.

I guess it's a personal matter and each has his own definition.

In France, marriage is defined as the institution which allows two persons to unite together and live in common in order to found a family.

If it is of any help to you, here is my translation of the principal articles that now apply in French law following the passing of the "marriage for all" bill:

"Marriage is contracted by two persons of different sex or of the same sex.

Marriage cannot be contracted before the age of 18 years".

The new law authorizes married same-sex couples to adopt children if they so desire. It does not authorize them to acquire children by any other means.

The new law is now before the Constitutional Council where it is being examined on constitutional grounds at the request of the chief political right opposition party (UMP).

The outcome of that final challenge is expected to be announced sometime prior to this summer.

.

Dear Poirot,

Congratulations on your control and civility.
Many others would have used the middle finger
ages ago. ;-)

Well done!

Thank you, Lexi.

Of course, I'm not averse to a little heated debate.

Usually, however, heated debate arises from a prerequisite butting of style and opinion. Curiously, onthebeach doesn't appear to require any particular degree of preceding discussion before he launches into his rant.

While it's a tad off-putting, I find his behaviour at least affords me a few rounds on the practice court just to keep my hand in...which is handy for debates which really count.

Dear Poirot,

Excellent attitude.

The mutual grooming is interesting. Goes with the constant need for affirmation, praise and general 'cheering on'.

Almost as interesting as Poirot's self-importance, grandiosity, anger and drama about being asked two simple easy questions. The two questions remain unanswered while Poirot indulges her/himself:

"- Are you or are you not a supporter of gay marriage? Yes or no.

- If you are, then it is only reasonable to ask you to define what marriage means to you."

But do carry on, I have interrupted what is certain to be a regular ritual.

This stuff is so obvious that others would surely have remarked on the behaviours in the past. LOL

Dear onthebeach,

See, we do understand that you're really rather limited
and can't help yourself. We'lll overlook this disfunction,
and will try (if we have nothing better to do) to
speak to you later.

Take care and try to stay calm. ;-)

But you didn't ask me a simple question, onthebeach.

You imputed and attributed all kinds of experiences, views and oinions to me in your first post to me on this thread.

Looky here...

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5746&page=0#160896

Yours was a loaded post...loaded with insult, your own imaginings and a goodly dose of antagonistic fervour.

The only "ritual" on display here is the one where onthebeach plays the little terrier, latching on to a rhetorical trouser hem - and refusing to let go.

Pal.

Predictable too! LOL But as I already observed, it is not just likely but a dead certainty that some helpful posters would have drawn your propensities, especially that grandious sense of self-importance, to your attention ages ago, you being a long term poster on this site.

Now, back to those rather simple two questions that you refuse to answer:

"- Are you or are you not a supporter of gay marriage? Yes or no.

- If you are, then it is only reasonable to ask you to define what marriage means to you."

Answering those should be a shoo-in for such a very clever and haughty Poirot.

But, onthebeach, you've already been my mouthpiece - apparently.

Here's what you attributed to haughty moi.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5746&page=0#160931

I think that's a pretty inventive and comprehensive offering from you - but I'm a tad perplexed that you find the hem of my trousers so irresistible.

I love the fact that you spout on and on about "rudeness".

Do you consider your inked post above to fine form then, considering that it's entire repertoire came not from Poirot, but from your own confected assumptions?

Poirot,

Even your language is haughty, aptly illustrating your grandiousity. Others have mentioned it before, haven't they? LOL

Two simple little questions. But goodness, what a carry-on to avoid answering them.

onthebeach,

I didn't come onto this thread to answer your questions.

I came onto this thread to say this to Josephus:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5746&page=0#160888

Since then I've been plagued with a yapping and growling in the general vicinity of my ankles.

I think I've run out of doggy treats though.....you'll have to find someone else to annoy.

Signed,

Haughty Poirot

.

A brief interlude ...

.

So let's take the time to contemplate on a few basic facts:

.

Same-sex marriages are not permitted under Australian federal law.

Prior to 1961, the states and territories administered marriage law.

In 2004 the Marriage Act 1961 was amended in federal parliament to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Prior to 2004, marriage was not defined in the act.

In early 2012 the House of Representatives conducted an online survey to provide a simple means for the public to voice their views on same-sex marriage and two bills which sought to legalise it.

There were 276 437 responses, the largest number ever received by a Committee of the House of Representatives.

177 663 respondents (64%) were in favour of changing the law to recognise same-sex marriage, 98 164 (35%) were opposed to it and 610 (1%) were unsure.

However, the report acknowledged that "The online survey was not a statistically valid, random poll. Respondents were self-selected, in that they chose to participate if they wished."

There have been no public opinion polls published since that survey by the Committee of the House of Representatives in 2012.

.