It would appear that a vote for labor is a vote for gay marriage, and a vote for the libs is a vote for a plebiscite.

So the choice is, do you want your say on this very important issue, or do you want that choice taken away from you.

It is not a very important issue at all and the fact that so much of taxpayers’ money is wasted by politicians in discussing it is a national disgrace.

There are absolutely no advantages at all from having a government issued certificate which says that the government acknowledges your relationship as a marriage. Only those who are insecure about the depth of their relationship would need someone else to tell them how to define their relationship. Whatever practical benefits come from the government are based on the government’s definition of what constitutes a couple. The government does not need to define marriage, nor issue certificates to those who it thinks are married.

Marriage should not be defined as a relationship that needs government approval. Unless there are some practical reasons for the government to be involved in the definition of marriage then it is a complete waste of time and money to be involved in the issue of defining marriage.

Some people may think they will feel better if they get a government issued certificate but the taxpayers of this country should not be fitting the bill just to paper over the insecurities that some couples have about the validity of their relationship

Either way Butch. The opinion polls have been saying gay marriage is ok now for two years. So it could be a matter of a swag of money or no money.

Phanto,
It is an important issue and those that seek to define a same sex relationship to that of one word can find another word than the word 'Marriage'.

The word 'marriage' is taken and means a union between a male and female.

The only reason same sex couples want to use the word 'marriage' is to try and show their sexual activities in a better light.

I don't care what sexual activities they engage in but they can find another word for their union. Why not simply call it a 'union'. I think few married couples would object to that.

u can be sure just like Britian that the socialist won't accept the will of the people if they vote to protect the word marriage. They are obviously worried that the numerous polls they suggest favour them are bogus. What a surprise!

Banjo:

Even if the legislation is not changed you cannot stop same-sex couples from calling their relationship a marriage if they want to. No one has a monopoly on the word. That is a basic right of free speech. Governments should not define the meaning of the word unless they need to. If they need to distribute benefits then they need to know who comes under the definition of being a couple and not a married couple.

The government has no need to be in the marriage business at all and so any time spent discussing who is eligible for a government issued marriage licence is a waste of time and money.

I am completely with Phanto here.

Gay marriage is all a bit of a distraction, I could assume, wearing down many people from bothering to care about what happens in politics.

Has any person considered government pension rights, death of a spouse; whether what happens in inheritance to children from another normal relationship marriage.

Why not create binding legal contracts which serve the same purpose as normal relationship marriages, putting on ceremony to celebrate an occasion.

I also assume politicians are having a good laugh at citizens who feel politicians are serious concerning entities, instead of what I assume politician are, as being news paper cartoon character entertainments.

The division between people who believe their own childhood beliefs, refusing to feel they have been wrong, constantly trying to reinforce what is believed, and people who can constantly rethink their beliefs without being influenced by emotions, realising many media stories are somewhat over the top fiction.

I think a plebiscite is a huge waste of taxpayers money for what is obviously a majority opinion in the electorate in favour of legalizing gay marriage. Why don't the politicians just do what the majority in their electorates want and just legalize it for goodness sake?
It is not going to make one blind bit of difference to anyone else in the community, but it would certainly save money by not having a plebiscite.

All Malcolm is doing is trying to appease the mad far-right members of his party by seeming to at least try and get a negative result from a plebiscite. If they couldn't get a negative result from an almost totally Christian country like Ireland, then they haven't got a hope in hell here!

Butch,
You need a good dressing down for using the words gay marriage together.

You could refuse to use the word gay, as I do, when referring to homosexuals. Marriage should be used only in relation to opposite sexes. Lesbians is OK for female homosexuals and poofters seems adequate for the male homosexuals.

Obviously you need to be reprogrammed as you have failed the first step

‘What is the government doing in the marriage business anyway?’ is a red herring. For so long as the government is in the marriage business, they have no right to discriminate against same-sex couples. Nor did the government being in the marriage business seem to be an issue until the push to allow same-sex couples to marry grew strong, so it’s a disingenuous red herring.

'The word marriage is already taken', is also an invalid argument, because language is fluid and there is no such thing as a 'taken' word. I hope linguistic purists who complain about the use of words changing still use the word 'nice' to mean stupid or dim-witted. As for the word 'marriage', according to my Bible, its original meaning was the incestuous union between a man, a woman, and their murdering son. Conservatives who have been conned into thinking that marriage is about love are a bunch of sell-outs and wets.

Meanwhile, the plebiscite will now be an even bigger waste of money now that Turnbull has officially given Coalition MPs the go-ahead to just vote however they like regardless of the result.

Not a waste AJ, but a real chance to save.

I believe the only reason homosexuals want to officially marry is to get access to the superannuation benefits to spouses of public servants.

These benefits were introduced when mums stayed home with the kids, & it was a fair system to transfer the husbands super to a widow. This is quite unreasonable today, when mean public servants are married to another, & most women have their own support.

Homosexuals look enviously at this huge fund they are missing out on most enviously, & want in on the taxpayer teat too.

This alone is a good reason to say no.

I also don't believe the polling that says most Ozzies approve. If that was true, the poofters would want the vote immediately, rather than resisting it.

A J Philips:

It is not a ‘red herring’ to argue that the government should not be in the marriage business. If they can be persuaded by argument to get out of the marriage business then the question of whether same-sex couples should be included in legislation would be irrelevant.

It is irrelevant whether the issue has only come to the fore now. It is relevant now and it is a valid question to ask. A question is valid or it is not based on its own merits – why it has not been previously raised is irrelevant.

Dear Suse,

<<Why don't the politicians just do what the majority in their electorates want and just legalize it for goodness sake?>>

Or decree that all triangles must have four sides?

How can one possibly legalise what is not illegal in the first place?

Suse,
You know you are wrong, it makes a lot of difference to me in the way I see marriage. Firstly because I valued our marriage very highly and would not even consider being unfaithful or doing something that put that at risk.

Now some fools want to lump my wife and myself together with others that have weird and unsavory practices. Marriage is a respected institution, not so homosexual relationships.

Homosexuals have stolen the word 'gay' from our language in effort to appear in a better light and now they want to steal the word 'marriage' and the respectability that goes with it.

So those that advocate the word 'marriage' be applied to homosexual unions are fraudsters and con artists who are bent on advantage for themselves. Married couples have long earned respect from others in the community. Homosexuals have not any respect for their way of life and are now trying to thieve respect from us.

There is no other reason that homosexuals want to use the word 'marriage'. To hell with them, they can find their own word.

Hasbeen,

I’d doubt there’s much truth to your suspicions. Either way, what’s good for one is good for all.

As for polling, you can check that out for yourself. The polls in Australia have consistently been in favour of same-sex marriage since 2004, and the number of those in favour only continues to increase.

I can’t speak for gay people, but I’m against a vote because it’s an enormous waste of money, and I find the idea that our elected politicians need to put a vote to the people on a basic issue of equality as both antiquated and bizarre; just as I would find putting a vote to the people on whether or not interracial couples should be allowed to marry as both antiquated and bizarre.

phanto,

The question of what the government is doing in the marriage business is a red herring because it’s a separate issue that distracts from the more immediate question of why same-sex couples should be denied the “privilege” of being able to have their relationship and commitment legally recognised while the government *is* in the marriage business.

I disagree that the question of why the issue has only come to the fore now is irrelevant. Because if the government got out of the marriage business for no reason other than to stop same-sex couples being able to marry, then that has implications. Motivations count, as you are well aware of.

Moreover, if “What is the government doing in the marriage business anyway?” has become the only socially acceptable way to say, “I don’t want same-sex marriage legislated because I don’t like those bloody poofters”, then that’s a silver-lining that we would should be pleased with and is in our interests to know.

A J Philips:

“The question of what the government is doing .... in the marriage business.”

Just because the government is in the marriage business does not mean that it has good reasons for being there. If you do not think that governments should be involved then you will not want to pursue a government issued marriage licence so it becomes an important consideration for all those thinking about the pursuit of such a licence. Firstly you have to acknowledge their authority to be able to define marriage. If you do not acknowledge it then you would not bother to seek a certificate from them. If you do acknowledge it then you have to have good reasons for doing so. It is an integral part of the logic that each person must consider before they decide to pursue a certificate. It is not a separate issue – it cannot be divorced from the decision making process.

Unless you have good reasons why they should be involved then it is illogical to pursue same-sex marriage. Otherwise you could be seen to just be taking advantage of the situation. Your integrity would be questionable.

“I disagree ... Motivations count, as you are well aware of.”

The government should only get out because it is reasonable to do so. Getting out for any other agenda would be wrong. Same-sex couples might not be the only ones affected by them getting out.

“Moreover, ..... interests to know.”

We should not bother about what is ‘socially acceptable’ but what is reasonable. It does not matter what the motivation for wanting the government out of the marriage business is so long as the arguments presented are reasonable and logical. If it can be shown that there is no reason for their involvement in marriage then they should leave the business. Whatever the fallout from that might be is irrelevant. Not having a government issued licence will not hurt anyone.

I do find it interesting that many Australian neo-liberals are cheering Brexit seeing it as a victory for self determination over economic imperatives, yet we did not hear a peek from them when our very own deputy prime minister was warning all and sundry about the dangers of proceeding with gay marriage as it risked upsetting our trading partners in Asia.

The majority of Australians seem to feel we should just get on with it as do I. The current party in power doesn't have the guts to stand up and do the will of the people so they have deem an expensive plebiscite as the answer. Well so be it.

The plebiscite over this question need not be expensive if at the same time we are also asked a few dozens of other important questions in all areas of governance.

It should obviously include for example questions about asylum seekers and in the context of this particular issue, whether or not government should continue to involve itself in registering and providing certificates for personal relationships.

Yuyutu I was drafting a post last night very much along the same lines as your post, however my thoughts are that rather than hold an expensive plebiscite, why not say offer such topics as you have said at say every second fed election, or include it as part of our consist (if that's the right spelling)

Its very sad to think the likes of border protection, immigration and the forthcoming closure of our car industries have taken a back seat to the likes of gays wanting to marry during this campaign. In fact, its a disgrace and just shows what a politically correct ham strung country we have become.

Lets face it, Indigenous affairs are far more important, yet have not had so much as a mention.

Quite frankly I don't understand why we need a plebisite.
We have elected representatives who represent their
electorates and who make all sorts of decisions on our
behalf on all sorts of issues. Why can't there simply be
a conscience vote in Parliament and get it over and done
with. The Representatives know the views of their
electorates. Or if they don't they'll find out.
To me this would be a simply way of doing things.

cont'd ...

Apologies for the typo.

Another thing that has occurred to me:

If John Howard could change the Marriage Act why can't
it just be changed back in Parliament? It was Howard
who altered the Act to read that marriage was to be
between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all
others. Previously it did not specify that - so
can't it be changed back to what it initially stated?

Yuyutsu:

“The plebiscite over this question need not be expensive if at the same time we are also asked a few dozens of other important questions in all areas of governance.”
That is damage control over an issue that should not even be considered in the first place.

Rehctub:

“Its very sad to think the likes of border protection, immigration and the forthcoming closure of our car industries have taken a back seat to the likes of gays wanting to marry during this campaign. In fact, its a disgrace and just shows what a politically correct ham strung country we have become.”

Those in favour of same-sex marriage point to the polls which say that 70-80 percent of Australians support same-sex marriage. No one ever polls the importance of the question - it is just presumed. If Australians had to put it on a list of importance to the country where would it finish up? Would it warrant all the time and money being spent on it?

Many people want the government to show leadership and to vote on the question rather than have a plebiscite. Real leadership would be to ignore the issue altogether and get on with things that matter and affect people’s lives on a daily basis.

Well Foxy, we could easily have a vote in the parliament to change the marriage act. No problem legally why that can't happen. That's definitely what the the homosexual community want because they see that that is the most likely path to getting what they want. After Brexit the last thing they want is to give the people an actual voice in matters such as this. Who know's, they might actually vote the wrong way again!

It comes down to the level of importance you place on the proposed changes. If you see it as just a minor tinkering with an out-dated quaint custom then having parliament spend 30minutes in making the changes seems right.

But if you see it as the latest in a series of assaults on the family structure and you see the family as the very foundation of our civilisation then you might want to have society spend a little more time pondering the ramifications of the changes. You see, there are a great many people who think that the break-down of the family as the bedrock of society which has occurred over the past 50 or so years, is a major cause for societal decay, explaining things like the so-called epidemic of domestic violence and the violent youth culture. These people see homosexual marriage as a further assault on the institution of the family which will usher in other assaults, and they want to make a stand right here, right now. Up until quite recently. these people included not only religious groups but also people like the Obamessiah, Gillard, Rudd, Shorten.

So for them its a bit more than changing a few words in the statute. They want the ramifications fully aired and the full demos to decide.

Unfortunately for those who see it otherwise, these people currently hold sway and today the process is to poll the entire nation on its view AFTER all arguments have been put. For them spending $160mill on what may be the most important societal decision this century is a pittance.

That's why there will (probably) be a plebiscite.

I never suggested that it did, phanto.

<<Just because the government is in the marriage business does not mean that it has good reasons for being there.>>

I even put quotation marks around the word ‘privilege’ to avoid suggesting that it does, and going down yet another irrelevant line of discussion.

<<We should not bother about what is ‘socially acceptable’ but what is reasonable.>>

All I was saying there is that if people are afraid to express their bigotry overtly, then that is of interest to us because it means we’ve progressed (i.e. what is reasonable has permeated society enough for those who hold bigoted beliefs (which are never reasonable) to be too afraid to voice them in a direct way).

<<It does not matter what the motivation for wanting the government out of the marriage business is so long as the arguments presented are reasonable and logical.>>

I agree.

And, “I don’t want the government in the marriage business because I can’t stand the idea of those bloody poofters gettin’ hitched”, is not reasonable or logical. Therefore, it is in our interests to know if that is the motivation.

Another point, phanto.

I don’t buy the other popular, more socially acceptable, argument against same-sex marriage that you mentioned to rehctub either.

<<Real leadership would be to ignore the issue altogether and get on with things that matter and affect people’s lives on a daily basis.>>

Because if those who expressed this view really cared about parliament not wasting time, then they would want the government to just get on with it already and push legislation through. A vote in parliament could take as little has half an hour, and given this issue is not going to disappear, avoiding it is actually a bigger distraction and waste of time than pushing the legislation through would be.

The argument doesn’t wash, sorry.

By the way, issues of equality always matter.

What's the point of dragging the entire country through this process for the benefit of some thousands of same sex attracted people who might want to marry and the majority of whom will be divorced with in two years?
Last time I checked, in the UK about 30,000 people out of a population of 62 million had taken advantage of the changes in the law, the majority of them Lesbians who'd been together for an average of 17 years.
50% of those couples already had civil partnerships and chose to marry after it became legal, the average ages were 40 for women and 37 for men.
This is a trivial issue directly affecting around 0.048% of the population, it's not even representative of the majority of Gays.
If we use the same numbers to hazard a guess at the possible beneficiaries of a change to the marriage act in this country we come to the figure of around 11,000.
Overseas figures for same sex divorce are also available, the average seems to be about 14% per annum as opposed to 2% for opposite sex couples. This figure is drastically skewed by the instability of Lesbian relationships so it's not fair to simply break it down into two categories when three are needed, Gay male marriages are only slightly less stable than opposite sex unions.

A marriage between two persons should exclude all other partners; this is not the case in homosexual relationships if children are involved as their others who have contributed to the child's life. From the lies told to children in same sex relationships it has not been to the benefit of the child, either emotionally [who am I" or in their inheritance,if their birth mother dies and the other partner receives all the property of the relationship.

Homosexuals already have equality in society to a married couple; but the lesbian community want the right to children. From the girl children of those relationships it is important the child have a bonded relationship with their biological father.

Dear Mhaze,

<<That's definitely what the the homosexual community want because they see that that is the most likely path to getting what they want.>>

Please don't implicate the poor good homosexuals in this - they have no hand or foot in this matter.

Perhaps what you meant is the gay community, which is a political anti-religious movement, rather than the homosexual community, which is based on sexual attraction: most homosexuals are not gay and a large number of gays are not homosexual.

What the gay lobby wants is to persecute the religious and if it helps their cause, they are even prepared to pay homosexuals to get married. Homosexuals who so wish, already can and do marry each other, even in a religious ceremony which some denominations offer, and their marriage is already even more widely recognised and respected than state-sanctioned marriages.

Ah yes! Thank you Jay of Melbourne. You reminded me of a third more socially acceptable way of saying, “I don’t want same-sex marriage legislated for because I can’t stand the idea of those bloody poofters gettin’ hitched.”:

The argument that we’re only talking about a small portion of the population anyway, or that many of them don’t want to get married.

So what?

Many feminists who fought for the right for women to serve in the military didn’t want to join themselves, nor do many women in general want to serve to begin with, but that didn’t make their arguments any less valid.

Yuyutsu,

First you invent your own definition for the words ‘religion’ and ‘exist’, now you’re inventing your own definition for the words ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’.

<<Perhaps what you meant is the gay community, which is a political anti-religious movement, rather than the homosexual community, which is based on sexual attraction: most homosexuals are not gay and a large number of gays are not homosexual.>>

You desperately need a dictionary.

But thank you for presenting us with a fourth more socially acceptable way of saying, “I don’t want same-sex marriage legislated for because I can’t stand the idea of those bloody poofters gettin’ hitched.” Because I don’t believe for a second that not one homosexual person doesn’t want marriage equality, nor do I believe that gay people are just a bunch of rabble-rousing heterosexuals.

Your arguments are absurd.

Do we have anyone else? Are we missing any other disingenuous arguments?

Foxy,

"If John Howard could change the Marriage Act why can't
it just be changed back in Parliament?"

The simple answer to that is there is no impediment at all to parliament amending it back to where it was before Howard tampered with it.

The plebiscite is nothing more than a tool being wielded by the govt in order to frustrate a vote on SSM - and also to create a climate whereupon society can have a right royal bun fight...along the lines of Brexit.

That's what Conservatives like to do, it seems.

A J Philips :

You seem to be saying that any argument against change is just a socially acceptable way of hiding bigotry. What does it matter if they are bigots or not since the only thing that matters is the validity of their argument? If you can dismiss their arguments then that is all you need to do in order to achieve change. There is no need to call them bigots or homophobic or any other name.

“Because if those who expressed this view really cared about parliament not wasting time, then they would want the government to just get on with it already and push legislation through”.

The government should do what it has a responsibility to do and nothing more. It should not be responsible for defining marriage relationships. Doing what it should not be doing is wrong whether it takes a short time or a long time. It is all a waste of time because any time spent doing what you are not meant to do is wastage of taxpayer resources. The government should be answerable for any time it wastes.

“The argument doesn’t wash, sorry.”

If you apologise when you have done nothing wrong it sounds patronising.

“By the way, issues of equality always matter.”

No they don’t. There are millions of inequalities between people all round the world. Some are more important than others. People pursue the ones that matter to them and ignore the rest. Without a hierarchy of importance we would be exhausted trying to pursue them all

phanto,

Until someone can provide a valid argument against change, then yes, that’s what I’m saying.

<<You seem to be saying that any argument against change is just a socially acceptable way of hiding bigotry.>>

Because I think I’ve heard and engaged in this debate enough now to determine that a valid argument against change is looking exceedingly unlikely. Furthermore, the arguments against change that I've heard are so obviously false or beside the point.

<<What does it matter if they are bigots or not since the only thing that matters is the validity of their argument?>>

It wouldn’t matter. The problem is the complete absence of a good argument. The bigotry is implied from that.

<<If you can dismiss their arguments then that is all you need to do in order to achieve change. There is no need to call them bigots or homophobic or any other name.>>

Correct.

<<The government should do what it has a responsibility to do and nothing more.>>

Yes, I agree, and one of those responsibilities is to improve equality and reduce discrimination. Societies have never benefitted from going the other way.

<<It should not be responsible for defining marriage relationships.>>

Agreed. We can all do that ourselves.

Again, the argument that the government should stop wasting time and get on with governing is perhaps the most obviously disingenuous argument against change. Because if that were the only issue, then you would want the government to get on with the change so it can focus on other issues given that this is obviously an issue that is not going away.

<<No [issues of equality] don’t [always matter]. There are millions of inequalities between people all round the world. Some are more important than others. People pursue the ones that matter to them and ignore the rest. Without a hierarchy of importance we would be exhausted trying to pursue them all>>

This doesn’t negate my point that issues of equality always matter. It just highlights the importance of prioritising, and one factor to consider is the ease with which an inequality can be corrected.

A J Philips:

“Until someone can provide a valid argument against change, then yes, that’s what I’m saying.”

So if everyone who does not agree with you is a bigot then why do you engage with them? All you need to do is read their post and if they do not agree with you then you would dismiss them as bigots and there is no point in engaging with bigots because bigotry is not a rational position – it is an emotional one.

“Yes, I agree, and one of those responsibilities is to improve equality and reduce discrimination. Societies have never benefitted from going the other way.”

It does not follow that this particular issue is the government’s responsibility. You can have equality and reduce discrimination without government involvement. There are lots of scenarios in society where people take care of these things without government intervention.

“Because if that were the only issue, then you would want the government to get on with the change so it can focus on other issues given that this is obviously an issue that is not going away.”

No you would want the government to cease forthwith because proceeding to change means that time will be wasted. It is not a question of which is the lesser of two evils. If you can cease immediately then you should do so. Legislation should be changed firstly because you think it is reasonable for the government to be involved and secondly because there are good reasons for it to be changed. If you do not accept the first part then the reasons for the second part are irrelevant.

“This doesn’t negate my point that issues of equality always matter. It just highlights the importance of prioritising, and one factor to consider is the ease with which an inequality can be corrected.”

If you agree that priorities need to exist then you need to show why this issue is more important than many other issues. You have not presented such an argument.

AJ Phillips,
Going by those estimates only about 3% of same sex attracted people in the UK have expressed an interest in marriage, what's more there's no equality between the three different types of marriage, they're all completely different.
Face it "Marriage Equality" has little to do with either Gays or marriage, in the main it's all about virtue signalling by mainly heterosexual bourgeoisie and to a lesser extent New Left liberation theory re-jigged for the 21st century.
If 60% 0f the population supposedly supports Gay marriage then it's clear that that the figure drops to only 3% among same sex attracted people, if homosexuals in the U.K almost unanimously reject Gay marriage, why should I support it?.
It's a trivial issue trumped up by companies like Google and Facebook for their own commercial gain, to get people clicking on sponsored ads, in the real world outside the internet it means nothing, least of all to Gays, it seems.

Yes AJ, I guess if you decide that any view that doesn't accord with your own is definitionally invalid, then clearly all views that don't accord with your own are not valid. Of course, its then an easy step to decide that these invalid views need to be suppressed, which is the (intended?) destination for the homosexual lobby. (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/antidiscrimination-test-over-catholic-churchs-marriage-booklet/news-story/ea8aaee464a1a65c32db6552117fad5f)

At the risk of raising invalid arguments, it seems to me to be arguable, at the very least, that a move to legitimising and normalising homosexual marriage is a (further) assault on the family. Given that the family is a fundamental building block of our and most other civilisations, both now and in the past, it would be prudent to give great consideration to going down that path. Also, given the ramifications of getting it wrong, it seems only right that it be a societal decision rather than one made behind closed doors by people whose main concern is their own political status.

The family as it was once understood has been under sustained attack for the past 50 or so years and society is none the better for the changes made so far. A pause to consider seems prudent. A decision to continue down that path or a decision that this will not affect the value of family seems to be one that all society ought to be invited to participate in.

Because, phanto, I believe that bigotry must be fought at all opportunities.

<<So if everyone who does not agree with you is a bigot then why do you engage with them?>>

Whether or not someone agrees with me is not the benchmark either. It could be that I am wrong about something. Which is another reason to engage with others.

<<It does not follow that this particular issue is the government’s responsibility.>>

It is for so long as they are in the “marriage business” for reasons I have already outlined.

<<You can have equality and reduce discrimination without government involvement.>>

That is true. But so long as the government is in the marriage business, they are the only ones who can make the change regarding their involvement.

<<No you would want the government to cease forthwith because proceeding to change means that time will be wasted.>>

Like I said, a vote could be done, readings and all, in as little as half an hour. Withholding equality over such small amounts of time is hardly an argument. Granted there may be a few hours or even a couple of days of processing involved, but it’s still hardly a good case against something as beneficial as equality.

<<If you agree that priorities need to exist then you need to show why this issue is more important than many other issues. You have not presented such an argument.>>

Actually, I did. A reason to prioritise this issue is because it could be so easily and quickly done compared to other issues of equality.

By the way, you don’t seem too upset about the Howard government wasting time with their change to the Marriage Act.

mhaze,

That's not much of an argument.

<<…that a move to legitimising and normalising homosexual marriage is a (further) assault on the family.>>

The typical family is continuously changing. The nuclear family was only the most common form of family between the '40s to the '70s. Regardless, homosexual couples are already having families, so "legitimising" such marriages can only be a good thing for the children of those families.

AJ Philips..." The nuclear family was only the most common form of family between the '40s to the '70s."

Well that is utter rubbish. I refer you to the work of people like Peter Laslett (among many others) that shows the nuclear family of a father, mother and kids living in a discreet separate house goes back to at least the 13th century, at least as regards North-East Europe. It probably goes back much further than that but records aren't good enough to know for certain.

It was/is the very bedrock of the western civilisation and is one of the reasons why it has been so successful as a society over the past 500 years.

I find it fascinating and not a little frightening that so few people understand the fire we are playing with here. Not knowing where we've come from leads to daft notions like spending 30 minutes and changing a few words to change and potentially fatally wound an institution that has been so important for so long.

As much as the activists try to hide the truth, there is more than sufficient evidence that children raised by their married natural (male) father and natural (female) mother do better than any other familial grouping.

I'm not sure if allowing homosexuals to call their partnerships marriage and giving that the imperateur of the law will deal significant harm to the institution of the family to the detriment of the offspring. I do know that other off-handed 'reforms' such as easy divorce and making single parenthood an economically viable life-style choice, have been a disaster for a generation of children.

And I do know that we should spend more than 30 minutes of ahistorical pontification on the proposed changes. I do know that we need to lay out the full potential ramifications of the changes and let the entire society decide whether its worth the risk.

A J Philips:

“I believe that bigotry must be fought at all opportunities”

So do most people but they do not bother trying to reason with a bigot since the definition of a bigot is someone who is not concerned about reason.

There are many in this thread who do not agree with same-sex marriage and by your own definition they are all bigots and cannot be reasoned with so why do you try? What special powers do you have that no one else has got in dealing with bigotry?

“It could be that I am wrong about something. Which is another reason to engage with others.”

You might read what they say but you would not bother replying since as soon as you see they disagree with you then it becomes clear that they are bigots and yet you continue to reply. It makes no sense. You say one thing and then do something completely contrary to what you believe. Either you do not believe they are bigots or you are trying to meet some personal need like the need to impress.

“It is for so long as they are in the “marriage business” for reasons I have already outlined.”

“so long as the government is in the marriage business, they are the only ones who can make the change regarding their involvement.”

Yes they are in the marriage business but do you think they should be? If you do not think they should be then what is the point of arguing for a change in legislation. If you think they should be then you must have good reasons why. You have not given those reasons. You cannot sit on the fence – it is either yes or no.

“Actually, I did. A reason to prioritise this issue is because it could be so easily and quickly done compared to other issues of equality.”

Issues should be prioritised on their level of importance not on how long it takes to get them through legislation

mhaze,

The nuclear family may have been around for hundreds of years, but it was only the most common form of family between the '40s and '70s.

Either way, the fact remains that homosexual couples are having families regardless, and denying the parents of these children the same legitimacy as the parents of heterosexual couples is a form of marginalisation and arguably more damaging than any of the hysterical concerns you raise.

phanto,

What makes you think bigots can't be reasoned with?

<<There are many in this thread who do not agree with same-sex marriage and by your own definition they are all bigots and cannot be reasoned with so why do you try?>>

I was once a bigot on this topic in my Christian days and I changed my mind.

<<What special powers do you have that no one else has got in dealing with bigotry?>>

None necessarily. But it's not always just about the actual person you're dealing with. There may be fence-sitting onlookers who could be persuaded.

<<You might read what they say but you would not bother replying since as soon as you see they disagree with you then it becomes clear that they are bigots and yet you continue to reply.>>

Well clearly I do reply. I'm open to reasoned arguments too, evidently I just haven't come across any yet.

<<You say one thing and then do something completely contrary to what you believe.>>

No, I do something contrary to what you think my belief dictates I should do.

<<Yes they are in the marriage business but do you think they should be?>>

I don't have a very strong opinion either way on that.

<<If you do not think they should be then what is the point of arguing for a change in legislation.>>

Equality while they are.

<<You cannot sit on the fence...>

Why can't someone be undecided? This is a throwaway line.

<<Issues should be prioritised on their level of importance not on how long it takes to get them through legislation>>

They should be prioritised based on both.

Fighting bigotry! There we go, that's what we mean by virtue signalling, for AJ this isn't about homosexuality or equality it's about distinguishing himself as one of the virtuous gütmenschen, as opposed to these bigots, who are the bad people.
There is clearly no demand for same sex marriage among the extreme minority of people who are same sex attracted, the drive to implement the changes comes from the bourgeoisie, led the companies which sell them their aspirational "lifestyle" products and backed by politicians who need their votes.
Apple, Facebook and Google are to same sex marriage what Benetton was to anti-racism, the whole debate is a capitalist marketing strategy targeted at mid-range consumers.

Dear Poirot,

Thanks for your earlier comments.

I think that you're right about the Coalition
government regarding same-sex marriage:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-24/election-2016-coalition-mps-can-vote-against-gay-marriage/

It seems like such a waste of money ($160 million) when the plebisite
is not even legally binding and not matter what the outcome, can
be ignored anyway. It is particularly maddening to go through this
expensive farce. And all for pretense?

rehctub,

Regarding your question that started the thread, I'd rather have my say.
But I'm not prepared to compromise the economy of Australia just to have my say. Especially as the issue appears to be lost already.

Most of the arguments we've heard on both sides are absolute crap. Too many opponents of same sex marriage have shot themselves in the foot by resorting to hateful homophobic rhetoric. And the ridiculous claims that it's about the kids have also harmed the cause. If it were really about the kids, I'd vote YES!

Nobody has properly advanced the argument that it's about values not rights. They've even failed to challenge the lie at the heart of the debate: that each person is either gay or straight. And now it's too late. Had Abbott put it to the people sooner, there would've been a good chance of a NO vote, but now most people have already made up their minds to legalise it.

Also, a plebiscite that the politicians can ignore is just a waste of money. We should have a proper referendum. Although the constitution doesn't require a referendum, nor does it prohibit legislating for one. But the politicians prefer to give us the illusion of the chance of having a say.

The Liberals are too great a threat to our economy to risk it.

mhaze,

I should also add that if it’s really about the children (as it so often is with those who predict that a threat to the nuclear family will spell the end of civilisation as we know it), then it seems to be quite the blind spot in the vision of such doomsayers to not show concern for the children of same-sex couples.

This prediction of the sky falling in is nothing more than the Slippery Slope fallacy. While the nuclear family was quite possibly beneficial to (and obviously played a role, however big or small) to the progress of civilisation as we know it, there is no evidence to suggest that its slip back to a less common form of family will spell the end of civilisation as we know it. It hasn’t had that effect so far.

Contrary to your fears, overall crime rates continue to drop as the world becomes more tolerant and the world has never been less violent as it is now, despite the picture that the 6:00 news portrays.

phanto,

I shouldn't have said before that I hadn't heard any reasoned arguments. It's more a case that I haven't heard any well-reasoned arguments. I'd also add that the only sincere argument so far seems to be mhaze's (usually religiously-inspired) prediction that the sky will fall in if same-sex marriage is legislated for. In my experience, these people actually believe that crap.

I must say, though, that I find your assertions as to how I should behave, given my beliefs, to be quite presumptuous, counterproductive and just downright bizarre.

Jay of Melbourne,

Yes, "fighting bigotry". Such a noble cause, even if I do say so myself. But really, I’m just your average guy who understands a bit about sociology and gives a toss about facts. Although, I'm not sure why fighting for equality cannot be a part of my motivation as well. The two are not mutually exclusive, after all.

AJ, I've given you the facts, Gay marriage, though legal has thus far been rejected by 97% of eligible homosexuals in the UK, same sex attracted people don't care for the idea so why should I vote for it?
The worst part of the so-called debate on same sex marriage has been that it's further emboldened self righteous, bourgeois prigs in giving them another excuse to punch down lower strata and given licence to the worst aspects of globalist-capitalist manipulation of public opinion.
It's as if the middle classes have given up control of both their minds and wallets to the transnational merchant class exemplified by Tim Cook, Mark Zuckerberg and George Soros.

//Gay marriage, though legal has thus far been rejected by 97% of eligible homosexuals in the UK, same sex attracted people don't care for the idea so why should I vote for it?//

You shouldn't if you don't want to. It's called democracy.

But when other people do, you shouldn't sprout sour grapes if your team loses. Democracy works out like that sometimes.

That goes for the rest of you mob: since you're so keen on this plebiscite, it's pretty weak if you turn around and start whining about the result if it doesn't go your way. Nobody likes a sore loser.

May the force be with you all as you vote tomorrow.

Aiden, if its about rights and not values, then why cant the gay community simply choose another word.

It would have the exact same value, and protect heterosexuals rights.

rehctub,

"Aiden, if its about rights and not values, then why cant the gay community simply choose another word."

By that, you seem to be saying that for you it's not about "values"...you simply don't like the word "marriage" being used when the social contract applies to SSM.

So for you, it's down to semantics.

"It would have the exact same value, and protect heterosexuals rights."

Where are heterosexual rights being threatened?

Poirot,
Wait and see, it'll be interesting to see how many heterosexual people are sued or dragged into the courts for "causing offence" to homosexuals during the campaigns for the plebiscite.
Anti discrimination laws don't apply to White, heterosexual, able bodied people so there you have a disparity or a state of inequality right off the bat, we have no protection under human rights laws and militant minorities have in the past shown few scruples in using HR laws to their advantage.

JoM,

Like I said to Foxy, on this matter the only reason for a plebiscite is to whip up division and bad faith - and to waste a lot of time and money to stall the process.

It could all be done quite simply by reversing Johnny Howard's interference.

If people are into abusing others (for whatever reason) and they get pinged for it - so be it!

AJ wrote..." The nuclear family was only the most common form of family between the '40s to the '70s."

Well, again, that's rubbish. There is more than enough evidence to show that it has been the dominant form of social structure in N-E Europe since at least the 13h century. Again I refer you to the historians I mentioned earlier. Interesting to see that you've fallen for the myths perpetrated by the activist homosexual community hook line and sinker.

AJ you've been claiming to have examined all the arguments and arrogantly dismissed them as bigotry. But clearly you haven't examined them all or you've dismissed them based on ignorance. Arrogance based on ignorance isn't a pretty trait.

AJ also tells me I'm wrong to think that this will lead to the end of civilisation or that violence is on the rise. Since I didn't mention either we can assume that AJ is most comfortable when attacking straw men. Still Rosy Batty and the lock-out laws supporters will be pleased to know that they are being unnecessarily alarmist.

If you don't know how we got to here, you really can't go making predictions about what the changes hold for the future

A J Philips:

You obviously do agree that the government should be in the marriage business since you are appealing for the government to change the way they do their business. It would be illogical to argue for them to change the definition of marriage if you did not think that it is reasonable for them to be the sole arbiter of what constitutes a marriage.

You obviously agree that any definition of marriage must include that it is a relationship which must be legally acknowledged by the government. So you agree that they should be in the marriage business – they should be the one who determines what a marriage is and what it is not.

Why should they have this authority or more specifically why do you personally acknowledge this authority? Many people without a certificate define their relationship as a marriage because they do not see government involvement as being necessary. They do not acknowledge the government as the sole judge of what constitutes a marriage. They are free to do this since it is not a crime to define your relationship as you see fit.

Why then do you obviously agree with the government that they should be the only ones who define marriage? Why not appeal to same-sex couples to just change their definition of marriage to be a relationship that does not need government approval? This would be much easier and a lot cheaper to arrange.

You go on a lot about ‘equality’. Same-sex couples could have equality if they changed their definition of marriage to that of being a relationship defined solely by the couple themselves. Why do you want equality in this matter to rest in the hands of the government when there is no good reason why it should? Why should same sex couples have such a rigid view of what defines a marriage? Anyone else who defines marriage as between a man and a woman is labelled a bigot but is not also bigotry to exclude couples who define marriage as not needing government involvement?

It seems that there are quite a lot of people who think we shouldn't be asking the people to decide this issue because some people might say some things that other people might not like to hear.

I'm not sure what sort of political system these people support, but it sure ain't democracy.

JoM,

I know you’ve given me facts (assuming they're even correct), but I've already explained to you why it's irrelevant how small the figures may be. Nevertheless, they are certainly not the only facts worthy of considering.

mhaze,

I checked one of my sociology textbooks (the source for my ‘’40s to ‘70s’ claim (http://www.booktopia.com.au/sociology-australia-john-bessant/prod9781741750164.html?source=pla&gclid=CNL207S3080CFYSVvQodz50Jiw)) and it only mentions those dates with regards to Australia. It doesn’t mention other Western counties as I thought I had remembered it doing.

It does, however, spend four pages debunking the claim that the nuclear family is the bedrock for civilisation and explains where the sociologist, George Murdoch (who first proposed this idea), went wrong. Obviously I can’t repeat it all in 350 words, but ultimately his problem was that much of his work was assumed as he was of the Durkheim Structural Functionalist school of thought, which assumes that if a particular phenomenon exists, then it is necessarily for reasons that are beneficial (which is why it is now a largely abandoned sociological perspective).

<<Interesting to see that you've fallen for the myths perpetrated by the activist homosexual community hook line and sinker.>>

No, I have actually studied this to some extent. I’m not your average gullible fool.

<<…you've been claiming to have examined all the arguments and arrogantly dismissed them as bigotry.>>

I’m open to the possibility that I have not yet heard all the arguments, but otherwise, yes. I have even explained why they are inadequate (the bigotry is implied once the claimant continues to cling to it without sufficiently explaining why I am wrong).

I'd like to pursue this further, but I have limited posts and currently have some flies buzzing around my head.

phanto,

<<You obviously do agree that the government should be in the marriage business since you are appealing for the government to change the way they do their business.>>

...for so long as they are in it. That doesn’t mean I believe that they should be. Until you can address what I actually say and not what you want me to be saying, I’m done with you.

In their own words,

<Homosexual activist says gay ‘marriage’ isn’t about equality, it’s about destroying marriage

Johanna Dasteel

May 1, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Conservative pundits are saying that a homosexual activist exposed the hidden agenda behind homosexual “marriage” when she told an audience last year that the movement is not seeking equality but rather a total dismantling of the institution of marriage itself.

Masha Gessen, a journalist and author who campaigns for homosexual 'rights', made the comments last May in Australia on a panel at the Sydney Writer’s Festival. She said:

It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.

The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.
Providing her own life as an example for her advocacy to do away with marriage, Gessen described the complex family structure in which three children whom she parents live: one of them is adopted with her ex-partner, another - whom she birthed – has a biological father in Russia, and the third is the biological child of her current partner and Gessen’s brother. These three children have five adults in parenting roles, but not all five adults parent all three children.

“The five parents break down into two groups of three,” she said. “And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.”>
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/homosexual-activist-says-gay-marriage-isnt-about-equality-its-about-destroy

and
Why get married when you could be happy?
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/why-get-married/4058506

Aidan, if its about values and not rights, as you say, then why not simply come up with a word that describes their union. After all, are they going to be married as two people, husband and husband, or wife and wife. Of cause not, just find another word and its all settled.

Its so ridiculous to think we have a huge jobs crisis looming, housing affordability issues ( although I question that), debt that I doubt we can ever pay down and both parties seem willing to allow hundreds of thousands of refugees in yet the big issue here is gay marriage.

I just don't get it. Find another word and move on.

It is not families that want change to the social structures formed between man and woman, husband and wife or children and mum and dad; It is the Pornography industry and the "free love" activists.

We have a few evangelists here who passionately believe the politicians should change the definition of marriage to mean any sexual relationship because they are not happy when previous politicians clarified the definition of marriage to be the social norm. I note the Greens and Labor want to tamper with social normality to pander to a few while discriminating against a large percentage of the population who uphold the marriage is the exclusive bonded relationship of a man and woman. Can the Greens be taken seriously? I note the Greens placed the "Pirate Party" number "2" in N.S.W. Senate. From my understanding pirates plunder and rape woman, so is this their support base? No conscience and no mutual marriage.

//I note the Greens placed the "Pirate Party" number "2" in N.S.W. Senate. From my understanding pirates plunder and rape woman, so is this their support base?//

Yes, Josephus, because it's still 1693 and buccaneers are still plundering the Spanish Main.

https://pirateparty.org.au/faq/

A J Philips:

OK let us focus on the here and now. You are here in this thread arguing in favour of a change in legislation to allow same-sex marriage. You would not be doing that unless you agreed that the government has the authority to define the relationship between same-sex couples as a marriage if they see fit to do so. Why does the government need to define the relationship of any couple? They have the right and freedom to define their own relationship. They can define it as a marriage without ever having anything to do with the government. If they can already have what they say they are seeking then why do they want government involvement? Why do you agree with them that they should seek government involvement?

It is a simple question which you seem hell bent on avoiding. Why do you think that governments should be involved in defining marriages here and now? If you think they should be then it would be logical to continue arguing for a change in legislation. If you do not think they should be involved then it would be logical to cease arguing for a change in legislation since it is not necessary in order to define your relationship as a marriage.

So if you continue to argue for a change then it is obvious for all to see that you believe in government involvement – there is no way to escape that conclusion. If you do not think they should be involved then the only logical course of action for you is to stop arguing for a change in the way the government involves itself. You may say that you are undecided but your actions do not concur with your indecision. You have made a decision here and now, in this thread that you agree with government intervention.

Why have you decided that it is appropriate for the government to be involved?

Yes Tony I know they are pirates of other peoples research and art. Similar to the Greens in that they are the extreme socialist left who steal property and rights. Associated with Marxist philosophy to destroy Western culture and values, especially the exclusive bonds of marriage and family.

Well, you got off to a good start there at least, phanto.

<<OK let us focus on the here and now.>>

Yes, Let us.

<<You are here in this thread arguing in favour of a change in legislation to allow same-sex marriage.>>

Correct.

<<You would not be doing that unless you agreed that the government has the authority to define the relationship between same-sex couples as a marriage if they see fit to do so.>>

Correct, and they do, for their part, for so long as they remain in it. Please see the Marriage Act. (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma196185)

<<Why have you decided that it is appropriate for the government to be involved?>>

Bzzzzt!

Get back to me when you can argue against what I have said rather than putting words into my mouth.

If you want to start a discussion about whether or not the government should be in the marriage business, then by all means, please do so. I will look on with keen interest and perhaps even contribute and form a more solid opinion on the matter, depending on who I feel is presenting the best arguments. But until then, I will continue to ignore your red herrings and throwaway lines.

Good bye.

A J Philips:

“Correct, and they do, for their part, for so long as they remain in it. Please see the Marriage Act.”

The government can create a Marriage Act and define marriage but why do they need to do that? You are appealing to the government to change the definition of marriage when there is no good reason why they should need to define it in the first place. Every couple has the freedom to call their relationship a marriage they do not need anyone outside of the relationship to agree with them including the government. Same-sex couples can call their relationship a marriage if they want and that is all they need to do. Why do they need the government’s acknowledgement that their relationship is a marriage?

You seem to be saying that because the government is in the marriage business at present that they need to be. So why do they need to be?

Why wouldn’t you suggest to same-sex couples that they take up their freedom to define their own relationship? Their stated aim is to be married but the problem is that they define marriage as a relationship which must be acknowledged with a certificate from the government. The problem is not that they cannot marry at all but that they cannot be married according to the government’s definition of marriage. Why do they need government recognition?

cont.

cont.

Those in favour of government sanctioned same-sex marriage claim that their opponents are bigoted because they seek to exclude homosexuals from calling their relationship a marriage. The reality is that people who define marriage as something which must be acknowledged by the government are excluding all those couples who do not have certificates but nevertheless define their relationship as a marriage. This also constitutes bigotry. It is about trying to make couples acknowledge what they do not need to acknowledge.

So while you come in to this thread accusing others of bigotry you are indeed a bigot yourself because you have demonstrated by your behaviour that the only valid marriage is one which is acknowledged by the government and thus you exclude others who have every right to call themselves married. Where is the equality in that?

Not only are you a bigot but also a coward. While you arrogantly promote your superior understanding of these matters like some egotistical prize fighter such as in this example -
“Do we have anyone else? Are we missing any other disingenuous arguments?”

You readily dismiss reasonable questions put to you and run away when challenged. What have you got to fear except the loss of your own inflated sense of self?

That's an interesting question, phanto, and one for another thread.

<<The government can create a Marriage Act and define marriage but why do they need to do that?>>

Do you know what 'red herring' means? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring) You really think you're on to something here, don't you?

Now where's that mhaze character?

This rubbish about the nuclear family being the bedrock of society, and the talk of the collapse of civilisation as we know it, is where this debate really gets interesting.

Dear Poirot,

A very good question: "Where are heterosexual rights being threatened?"

Married heterosexual couples got married under certain assumptions, including what "marriage" means, or at least what is used to mean at the time. That is a contract they entered in good faith with the marriage-registrar.

Now, if the definition of "marriage" is changed on them, then not only have the other side failed to keep the contract, but moreover, they become parties and locked to a contract they never agreed to.

In the least, if the definition of "marriage" changes then such heterosexuals that were married according to the older definition should be able to revoke the contract, deregister their marriage and become unmarried, of course without the agony of having to physically separate for at least a year and pretend to never get back together.

Yuyutsu,

What an absolute crock of an argument. But thank you for providing us with a fifth socially acceptable way of saying, “I don’t want same-sex marriage legislated for because I can’t stand the idea of those bloody poofters gettin’ hitched.”

<<Now, if the definition of "marriage" is changed on them, then not only have the other side failed to keep the contract, but moreover, they become parties and locked to a contract they never agreed to.>>

Is mise tried this one on once and I’ll say to you the same thing I said to him: when heterosexual couples get married, they don’t do so with the proviso that ‘marriage’ will only ever stay as a heterosexual union. I certainly didn’t when I got married and I was a bigot too back then.

The love and commitment heterosexual couples legalise is not usually done so on the condition that marriage will only ever be defined as a union between one man and one woman. And any married couple who do actually marry on such a basis should probably not be getting married, or could remain married in the eyes of the bigoted church of their choosing. Although, they may have to shop around for that nowadays. Perhaps you should provide some contacts? It sounds like you may know of a few.

Once again, your argument is ridiculous.

Phanto, regardless of what type of relationship you are in, you are not married unless you have been pronounced married by a celebrant/priest and you have a marriage cert. Anything else is simply a relationship.

In any case, its looking likely that we wont have to worry about a few things because labors chances are looking grim.

So we will either have a plebiscite bill go through the house, or nothing.

Having recently attended a 60th Birthday organized by D a homosexual son and his lover T for D's mother. The mother made a slip in thanking them for the occasion by calling her son's live in lover T as his wife.
So homosexuals are 'husband' and 'wife' in the new marriage act.

Dear Rehctub,

In your heart of hearts you are either married or you are not. No state-bully can change this fact. If you ask those bastards for papers, this probably means that you are not sure in yourself, the result being that you ascribe them with legitimacy.

A J Philips:

I thought you had said goodbye to me – you must have been lying.

You keep calling the issue of government involvement a ‘red herring’ and yet it underpins everything you do on this forum. You are back here today arguing for the government to change the Marriage Act when it is not necessary for them to do so. Same-sex couples do not have to involve the government in order to define their relationship as a marriage. If they want to be married then all they need to do is to decide to call their relationship a marriage. There is nothing in the law that prevents them from doing this. There is nothing which says that the only people who have a right to define any particular relationship as a marriage is the government.

You want the government to be involved when they do not have to be involved in order for same-sex couples to be able to declare their relationship a marriage. Why do you want that? Why are you calling on the government when they do not need to be involved at all? It is totally illogical to ask someone for something when you already have it.

Thanks for the link – your research skills are amazing. I could never have done that.

“You really think you're on to something here, don't you?”

So do you or else you would not continue to argue with me. Who would bother arguing when they think that the point being made is irrelevant?

“Now where's that mhaze character?”

He is lining up outside the tent eagerly waiting for his turn to take on the legendary A J Philips who by his own admission is the greatest pugilist of his era.

Yuyutsu, if you are married as you say without ligi papers, then split, you are free to move on the moment you agree, whereas if you are married with ligit papers you have to file for divorce.

Need I say any more to devoid your argument.

Furthermore, for anyone to suggest a gay couple are husband and wife is just ridiculous. We might as well allow windows and widowers to marry their cat or dog as their relationship is also extremely loving.

The whole issue has just been made out to be far more important than it is and its about time we came back to the real issues, as the latest non result from the election shows just how dysfunctional our system of government has become.

rehctub:

“Phanto, regardless of what type of relationship you are in, you are not married unless you have been pronounced married by a celebrant/priest and you have a marriage cert. Anything else is simply a relationship.”

That is your definition of marriage. Why should everyone abide by your definition of the word? I can call my relationship with my goldfish a marriage if I want and no one can stop me. Your definition is pointless unless there is some way of making people abide by it.

Your definition discriminates against people who want to call their relationship a marriage. It is bigoted in favour of your own definition.

No one needs anyone else to tell them what their relationship is unless they are so insecure about that relationship that they need some authority figure to authorise it.

Dear Rehctub,

Well Phanto said most that I have to say already.

<< if you are married as you say without ligi papers, then split, you are free to move on the moment you agree, whereas if you are married with ligit papers you have to file for divorce.>>

Firstly, if you want to split then you were not truly married to begin with.
Secondly, nothing stops you from walking away from your partner, with or without papers. Nothing even stops you from obtaining a religious divorce (for those religions/denominations that allow it) then marry again by either the same or another church.

While I don't like the gay movement, I have nothing against homosexuals and homosexual couples and I could not care less what genitals your partner has. If in your heart of hearts you are married to a widow, a widower, a window, a cat, a dog or any number and combination of the above, then this is none of my business. I will always respect what is in your heart of hearts.

The whole issue here is about getting the government's grubby hands out of our personal relationships.

Phanto, the imagination is a wonderful thing, so enjoy your fairy tail.

Yuyutsu, I say the same to you, enjoy your fairy tail life.

The Marriage Act of 1961 was based on the assumption that it was marriage of a man with a woman, but the Howard Government, in order not to have to recognise same sex marriages allowed overseas, nailed down the exclusion in an amended act in 2004. Legal recognition of same sex marriages, including those entered into overseas (e.g. in USA) would require repeal of the 2004 legislation.

The Bill for the 2004 Act was opposed by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (https://www.humanrights.gov.au/marriage-legislation-amendment-bill-2004).

Marriage equality in Australia is a bit like gun control in the USA - the community wants it but the pollies, responding to antidemocratic minority pressure, are blocking it. They are making it clear that even a majority yes vote in a plebiscite will leave them free to go on blocking it.

The Election swing to the far right indicates a million voters do not want change to the marriage act even by plebiscite.

Why are labor and the greens so scared of a plebiscite, they have never cared about cost before? A poll on the subject showed that 69% favoured the plebiscite.

The only conclusion is that Labor and the greens are scared of the result.

Why should we have a say on just gay marriage?

Surely there are other social matters that are at least if not more important that also warrant our opinion?

Homosexuality itself was a criminal offence until relatively recently.

Why not re-ban that too if it apparently has such a huge impact on the life of some people?

Achieve instant marriage equality and save even more than $160M - no plebiscite is required to repeal the Marriage Act!

It's fascinating that people who've just voted for a party that is promising budget deficits over the forward estimates of $100 billion (or $84 billion is you support the other side), who think its fine and dandy to spend $80 billion so that people can download their pirated content quicker, suddenly discover fiscal rectitude when the money is being spent on things they don't like.

It seems that for some people, monetary policy is completely unfathomable but is the policy you fall back on when you can't think of any other reason to oppose what you don't like.

Yuyutsu, we already have marriage equality. Everyone has an equal right to marry any member of the opposite sex they choose without interference from government, church or any other power structure, something that has developed in the past 50 years in western liberal democracies and is pretty much unique in human history.

//Everyone has an equal right to marry any member of the opposite sex they choose without interference from government, church or any other power structure//

All that's going to change is that everyone will have an equal right to marry any non-related adult they choose without interference from government et. al.

Hardly a radical shake-up.

Toni Lavis:
“All that's going to change is that everyone will have an equal right to marry any non-related adult they choose without interference from government et. al.

Hardly a radical shake-up.”

Don’t they already have this? There is no need for any kind of shake up. What is going to change except that same-sex couples will have a note from the government saying that the government has decided to call their relationship a marriage? Why should they care what the government thinks about their relationship?

Unless there are good reasons for changing the legislation then it is all a waste of time and money. Do you have any good reasons?

//Unless there are good reasons for changing the legislation then it is all a waste of time and money. Do you have any good reasons?//

Equality.

I agree that your position of repealing the legislation also supports equality. But that's not what the plebiscite is about. If you think that is what the plebiscite should be about, then it is incumbent on you to lobby the Government to adopt that position.

But leaving the legislation neither changed nor repealed is not good enough.

Toni Lavis:

Equality is just a concept. There is no such thing as an equality. There are only things like equal rights to practical advantages or like the right to vote or the right to move about freely or the right to marry.

Since everyone already has a right to marry then there is no inequality in that regard. The only inequality is that some heterosexuals do have a certificate but since the certificate gives no practical advantage to those who have one it is worthless. Making all this fuss about a worthless piece of paper makes no sense.

"If you think that is what the plebiscite should be about, then it is incumbent on you to lobby the Government to adopt that position."

It is incumbent on all of us to do that including same-sex couples because there is no reason for having government involvement in any marriage and if the government is wasting time and money by being involved in any activity which it does not need to be involved in then it should concern all of us. Changing the legislation just makes a bad situation worse .

What is the point in making a bad situation worse to get a worthless piece of paper?

"Hardly a radical shake-up"

Well some of us think overturning an institution that has been the bedrock for western civilisation ever since there has been a western civilisation is somewhat radical.

And we'd rather like to have a say in that change and to give the population a chance to hear all the arguments - pro and con.

Well, let's see if phanto gets it when a second person cites equality as a benefit, instead of happily chugging along completely oblivious to the fact that his arguments already lay in tatters.

phanto,

Since you're so concerned about costs and time wastage, have you weighed these up with the financial and mental health costs of treating gay people and their relationships as second-rate? I'm pretty sure they'd well and truly exceed a few hours of Parliament's time.

Given the amount of amateur psychology you engage in, I'm sure you must have some idea. It's just a pity you don't engage in amateur sociology too. You may actually have some understanding of the benefits of equality and the costs of inequality.

Hmmm... apparently not.

mhaze,

In what ways did the nuclear family act as the bedrock of civilisation?

Greens/Labour have proved themselves economic vandals. They are putting on a show about being concerned about the cost of a plebiscite. They are more concerned they may lose. As simple as that.

A J Philips:

“Well .... tatters. “

You are not just talking about equality as some abstract concept – you are talking about the benefits that homosexual people do not enjoy in comparison to the supposed benefits that heterosexual people enjoy because of their possession of a marriage certificate from the government. What exactly are these benefits?

“financial and mental health costs of treating gay people and their relationships as second-rate? “

OK so finally you have raised a supposed benefit. The relationships of gay people are only second-rate if they agree that they are second-rate. What other people think about your relationships is irrelevant – the only thing that matters is what you think about it. If you do not have the confidence that your relationship is equal to anyone else’s then that really is your problem and it is never going to be fixed by getting married. Only you can do something about your own attitudes to your own relationship.

Are the relationships of heterosexual couples who do not possess a certificate from the government also second-rate?

Why do you feel the need to take cheap shots at me? I thought you had left the conversation – maybe you just came back for some bitching.

In fact they know they are more likely to lose than win. They & their ABC have been using push polling to get the garbage that the majority approve, hence the desperation to avoid a poll.

It really is a simple answer.

If you can breed naturally together, or could have if you are past it, you can get married.

Actually, phanto, I’ve mostly been talking about the former.

<<You are not just talking about equality as some abstract concept – you are talking about the benefits that homosexual people do not enjoy in comparison to the supposed benefits that heterosexual people...>>

But more specifically, the benefits that improved equality provides societies.

http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson?language=en
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14563071
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/The%20Cost%20of%20Inequality%20%20-%20full%20report.pdf

There’s decades of research on this stuff. I’m not just crying, “Equality!”, out of some hippie desire to hold hands and sing kumbaya. There are real, measureable benefits to equality.

But if you want benefits to the latter, then the Australian Marriage Equality’s website provides a few: http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/12-reasons-why-marriage-equality-matters.

<<OK so finally you have raised a supposed benefit.>>

What do you mean “finally”? These are the types of benefits that I’ve been referring to all along. It’s not “supposed” either. There’s plenty of research demonstrating such links:

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=the+cost+of+marriage+inequality&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1

<<The relationships of gay people are only second-rate if they agree that they are second-rate.>>

It’s about how they’re treated or regarded. Not what they themselves think.

<<Are the relationships of heterosexual couples who do not possess a certificate from the government also second-rate?>>

No, because marriage is an option there.

<<Why do you feel the need to take cheap shots at me?>>

Why do you feel that I’ve taken cheap shots at you? Surely you wouldn’t be so sensitive if you didn’t think they were warranted? Why would you be asking me why, if you were so secure in the belief that I had?

Gets annoying, doesn’t it?

<<I thought you had left the conversation...>>

Is that why you thought you could get away with continuing to dismiss equality as anything of value?

I hadn’t left. I won’t, however, engage with your amateur psychology or second-guessing of my actions and presuming to tell me how I should or should not respond to a given belief.

Presuming that if someone believes [insert belief here] then they should (or why would/wouldn't they?) [insert action here], is not a valid argument and becomes particularly stupid when you are provided with perfectly valid reasoning, only to ignore it.

A j Philips:

So you think equality as a principle is a good idea but that hardly means that every issue of inequality is of equal importance. Why is this issue of obtaining a government issued certificate of so much importance to same-sex couples?

You point to the mental health issues affecting same-sex couples because they cannot marry. They can marry they simply cannot obtain a government issued certificate. If not being married causes so much hardship then why not just call your relationship a marriage and your problem is solved.

Same with all the advantages. If there are all these advantages to be had then just get married and you will instantly feel all the benefits.

Or are you saying that all those health issues and all those benefits have nothing to do with marriage and everything to do with having a government issued certificate? If you just need to married to fix everything then why not get married. How could all those things hinge on the possession of a piece of paper? Who would give any government all that power to control their well-being

These proposals are a secular push to make ONE culture, ONE world order; controlled by the United Nations. One either believes in the right of the individual: or the right of the State. It is part of a plan to destroy personal rights and religious belief; and the State impose what one is to believe and how to behave. It is an endeavour to rule over personal conscience and right, as is evident is countries where LGBT rights of equality have been granted by discrimination laws. It is a push by Marxist for control.

Hasbeen,

What is the evidence that the polls are unreliable?

There are plenty of reasons to avoid a plebiscite other than fear of loss. Probably the best reason would be to avoid giving hate preachers a podium. In all jurisdictions in which marriage equality was decided by referendum, mental health issues and drug and alcohol abuse among the gay population rose significantly during the debate.

http://healthcareguild.com/presentations_files/Download%20-%20Marriage%20Equality%20for%20Same-Sex,%20Counseling%20Psychs%20as%20Social%20Change%20Agents.pdf

<<If you can breed naturally together, or could have if you are past it, you can get married.>>

So that excludes old couples and infertile couples then. Why should it have to be “together”? Shouldn’t children, regardless of whether or not assistance was required to conceive them, be a more important point of consideration?

phanto,

That’s correct.

<<So you think equality as a principle is a good idea but that hardly means that every issue of inequality is of equal importance.>>

But I’ve already addressed this. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7363#226757, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7363#226768)

<<Why is this issue of obtaining a government issued certificate of so much importance to same-sex couples?>>

The answer to that would differ from couple to couple.

<<They can marry they simply cannot obtain a government issued certificate.>>

Oh, you make it sound so dry and so un-small-government-Libertarian-ist when you say it like that. Symbolism counts and has real-world effects.

<<If not being married causes so much hardship then why not just call your relationship a marriage and your problem is solved.>>

For the same reason I can't just call myself a bird and fly. There are practical benefits to a marriage certificate issued by that dreadful, dreadful Big Government.

That link again: http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/12-reasons-why-marriage-equality-matters

But it’s not just about “not being married”. That much should be obvious to you by now. So I don’t think there’s any need to respond to the rest of your questions.

Start addressing what I’ve actually been saying, rather than asking questions that deliberately miss the point. I know you’re not that stupid.

“The answer to that would differ from couple to couple.”

Can you give me an example then?

“Symbolism counts and has real-world effects.”

This symbolism and its real world effects do not seem very important to all those people who do not bother to pursue a government issued certificate. That is a lot of human beings who seem able to live happily without them. Should the government be in the business of pandering to symbolism and real-world effects that seem important for a few when they seem so unimportant to so many?

“For the same reason I can't just call myself a bird and fly.”

So all those people who call their relationship a marriage are not married because they do not fit the bigoted definition of marriage being a relationship which must have a government certificate?

“There are practical benefits to a marriage certificate issued by that dreadful, dreadful Big Government.”

Can you name any which are not also available to couples? You do not need a marriage certificate to access any of these benefits.

“So I don’t think there’s any need to respond to the rest of your questions.”

You said that before already. Do you mean it this time?

What kind of a stupid question is that to ask me, phanto?

<<Can you give me an example [of why obtaining a government-issued certificate is of so much importance to same-sex couples] then?>>

Equality.

<<This symbolism and its real world effects do not seem very important to all those people who do not bother to pursue a government issued certificate.>>

Again, beside the point. We’re not talking about them, and I’ve already explained why their situation is irrelevant. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7363#227191)

<<So all those people who call their relationship a marriage are not married because they do not fit the bigoted definition of marriage being a relationship which must have a government certificate?>>

“Bigoted”. That’s cute.

<<Can you name any which are not also available to couples? You do not need a marriage certificate to access any of these benefits.>>

That link once again: http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/12-reasons-why-marriage-equality-matters

<<You said that before already. Do you mean it this time?>>

Oh, you’d love it if I left, wouldn’t you? Then you’d get to just spout off any old red herring and not have it challenged. And no, for the second time now, I had no intention of leaving this discussion. I said I wouldn't respond to your putting words into my mouth. I'll probably be here for the long haul, so you may as well start addressing what I actually say.

Sorry to get your hopes up there.

Anyway, when I said, “So I don’t think there’s any need to respond to the rest of your questions”, I was just talking about the rest of your questions in that last post of yours. That's all. You see, my comment just before that remark of mine (i.e. “But it’s not just about “not being married”.), should have made it clear as to why the rest of your questions were irrelevant to anything I have been saying. So there was no need to waste time and word-count in addressing them.

A J Philips:

“Oh, you’d love it if I left, wouldn’t you?”

It does not really matter one way or the other since you have served your purpose as far as I am concerned. I needed to clarify my own views and you have been a sounding board and a ‘devil’s advocate’ for those views. I am now satisfied enough about my own views to no longer need you.

You have not actually presented any arguments that have not been presented thousands of times over by other advocates for same-sex marriage. What you have done though is to provide a persistent response to my arguments which has helped me refine my own position. I could always bank on you providing an alternative point of view.

Most other people would have quickly rejected my arguments and moved on but you have made a sustained effort to keep up the dialogue. Only someone with a deep seated obsession would have done that. You claim that you are fighting for equality and same-sex marriage but no one would be as driven as you to ‘win’ arguments. This is not about SSM or equality for you it is all about your own emotional need to try and deal with the resentment and bitterness you have about something else altogether. I suspect it is about your lost years to Christianity. You are not trying to help the little guy you are just trying to hurt the big guy. Then again I am only an amateur psychologist.

I am saying this because I am trying to play my part in keeping these forums clean of people who come here for all the wrong reasons. People who abuse the forum to try and solve their own personal emotional needs are a hindrance to those who are genuinely seeking the truth about social issues in the hope of contributing to a better society. What they are doing should be exposed for what it truly is so that their manipulation does not dominate the discussion and waste people’s time.

One wouldn't think so given my discussions with you, phanto.

<<You have not actually presented any arguments that have not been presented thousands of times over by other advocates for same-sex marriage.>>

Because, if you were aware of the fact, then you should be well versed in countering those arguments instead of putting words in the mouths of others or trying to psychoanalyse their motives for being here.

<<Most other people would have quickly rejected my arguments and moved on but you have made a sustained effort to keep up the dialogue.>>

I could say the same for you. According to your amateur psychology, you yourself are "obsessed" or are not sure of your own position by virtue of the mere fact that you're still here.

<<Only someone with a deep seated obsession would have done that.>>

Or someone who was passionate about an issue, or had an intolerance for stupidity, or saw value in challenging publically-voiced flawed and potentially damaging ideas.

Could you cite the research upon which you have based this opinion of yours and how you eliminated the motives that I listed as a possibility?

<<You claim that you are fighting for equality and same-sex marriage...>>

“Fighting” is a bit of a strong word. If I wanted to do that, then I’d join some organisation. No, I’m a more taking the lazy route by countering ignorance on a forum that sees tens of thousands of visitors a month.

<<This is not about SSM or equality for you it is all about your own emotional need to try and deal with the resentment and bitterness you have about something else altogether.>>

Again, could you cite the research upon which you have based this opinion of yours?

<<I am saying this because I am trying to play my part in keeping these forums clean of people who come here for all the wrong reasons.>>

Even if you were a qualified psychologist, you wouldn’t be able to determine someone's motives over a forum.

No, as I’ve pointed out before, I think it’s just a sloppy debating tactic. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7136#218946, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18217#323735)