.

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