Paul,

I'm in favour of full pension rights for all, I don't see why being in a sexual relationship and married should affect the rate of pension.

This thread was intended to be more about ABC bias than SSM but, as it seems to be ending up more as an SSM discussion, I thought you might be interested in an article from the Quadrant I have just finished reading. The article was mainly to do with what is happening to Christianity, but there was a section about SSM.

The writer, an Anglican priest, doesn't believe that a case for SSM has yet been made. The current claim for such a thing is about “rights” but “marriage isn't about rights, it's about monogamy, and monogamy isn't a male response to sex in general, heterosexual or homosexual”, he writes. In fact, for most men, particularly gay men, sex is a “recreational” activity.

He goes on to say that: “Promiscuity is why heterosexual couples are finding their relationships increasingly difficult and filled with double standards ...(and) that's not a reason to introduce homosexual double standards into the marriage debate.”

What the writer does not go into is the fact that these people, for years, rubbished and sneered at the idea of marriage and family; now it suits them to demand 'equality in marriage'.

As probably one of a very few on the forum who has actually attended a legal gay marriage, (two close friends got married legally in New Zealand), We have stayed overnight several times over the past few years in the homes of gay couples, they have their room, we have ours, no problems, no more than staying with heterosexual people. As for our married friends I can say they are no different today than they were before their marriage, In fact have a better relationship than some of our heterosexual friends. Our lovely Maori niece and her pakeha partner have taken in four children from the extended Maori family, and given them love and care they never got from their biological parents. last time we stayed with our niece and her partner we discussed the possibility of marriage, and how the family would take it, both Aunties and I advised "go for it if that's what you want." Because of gay marriage the world as we know it wont end, life will go on, despite Malcolm Turnball's $122,000,000 survey. Much of the bigoted opposition to gay marriage, and gay people in general is based on ignorance.

ttbn,

The priest you cite is wrong. Firstly, the case has been made. Equal treatment is the only reason needed. I have never seen this successfully rebutted.

<<The current claim for such a thing is about “rights” but “marriage isn't about rights, it's about monogamy …>>

This would have to be the worst argument I've ever seen. It is one big non sequitur. Even a fallacious appeal to nature is better than this.

That marriage isn't about rights (forgetting for the moments that (legal) rights ARE a part of what marriage is about) is utterly relevant as to whether or not same-sex couples should have access to it. Driving a car has even less to do with rights than marriage, but women still have the right to do so.

As for this priest’s point regarding promiscuity, forgetting for the moment that it is an unfair generalisation, the argument is self-defeating. If gay men are generally promiscuous, then surely marriage could only be a good thing, as it would encourage monogamy.

<<What the writer does not go into is the fact that these people, for years, rubbished and sneered at the idea of marriage and family; now it suits them to demand 'equality in marriage'.>>

Not all of them. This is beside the point anyway. People are allowed to change their minds. Views change over time. A recent study, involving the same 17,000 people over the last 12 years, is a testament to that. As has been the polling on the topic of marriage equality.

Homosexuality is no longer a crime, nor is it
classified as a psychiatric disorder. Same-sex
couples are allowed to adopt children in most
jurisdictions. The Australian Medical Association
(AMA) is an organisation with conservative views.
And if the AMA can come out and support marriage
equality after having quite a long-term conversation
about it internally then surely the Coalition
Government should be able to do the same.

Speaking of homosexuality being taken off the DSM, I remember when I first learned of that. As a homophobic Christian at the time, I was enraged. I wrote the move off as ‘political correctness gone mad’ (Who do we hear that tired old line from over, and over, and over again?)

It wasn’t until I lost my faith and got myself an education that I learned, in one of my psychology units at university, that there was never any evidence for homosexuality being listed as a mental illness, and that it had only ever been placed on the DSM for purely religious reasons.

Ah, religion: is there anything that it doesn’t poison?