Foxy writes:
“The point that was being made was that if the government
could amend the Marriage Act. It can also change it back.”

Yeah, they could but given there were zero same sex marriages prior to 2004 because everyone knew what marriage meant, why would anyone carry on about it.

I expect the vast majority of people are fine with civil unions as well.

One real question that might be asked is:
What would same sex couples bring to the table in terms of ‘marriage’?

Dear Dustin,

«but given there were zero same sex marriages prior to 2004»

Really? All the difference is that in modern history, before 2004 those marriages were not registered by governments. In the West, they were previously registered by the Greeks and Romans and since 2004 some governments recognised them again. This doesn't mean that such marriages did not occur in between.

«because everyone knew what marriage meant»

Apparently this is not the case. Our dear Foxy for example, thinks that marriage is something to do with governments.

«I expect the vast majority of people are fine with civil unions as well.»

I am not one of them: government should stay right out of registering personal relationships.

Yuyutsu writes:
“government should stay right out of registering personal relationships.”

Good luck getting a birth certificate, then.

If I decide to vote in this opinion poll, I won't be voting favour of myself, as I don't care about that. I won't be voting in of favour of couples (they can look after themselves), but I will vote in favour of individuals. Individuals need protection in terms of basic human rights, in the context that they stand alone.

This was shown in the link I put, which says: "In the past few years, the information about Ms Allworthy’s donor sat in a file in the hands of people (government) who it had no meaning, but she could not access it, despite it meaning everything to her."

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/kids/chloe-allworthys-life-changed-when-she-found-her-real-dad/news-story/636605685ef60987832cedd394e607f5

This is a gross violation of basic human rights. As a person who has met with public servants myself, they were lifeless people, who simply were there to work for the government. There was no concern about the future or issues past or present and the meeting achieved nothing.

Individuals develop. They are born alone, they live alone as they grow and these individuals will pass away at some time. In terms of any relationship, individuals are still just that, individuals, including in the wider community. The following website, has a lot of quality comment and detail to it, in regards to surrogacy programs, which many do not wish to talk about.

In terms of the book I am currently writing about, family history is very important. Whilst some people may have no interest in family research, it is an issue when writing a book. The statements that IVF and surrogacy programs are happening already, is questionable, with many after (same sex marriage legalisation) will have a desire for children and advocate (legally) for such a move to be very accessible in Australia, potentially financially. One only has to look at the marriage discussion at present.

These impressive sites:

http://www.stopsurrogacynow.com/#sthash.JzBgOLdg.dpbs
http://www.stopsurrogacynow.com/films/#sthash.1SI25o4s.dpbs

Finally, if I was to write off climate change for example, in terms of policy and said no to further action in Australia, many would very much object to that. These people would want immediate action from the Australian government!

Dustin,

Before one even gets to that question, one should ask why gay people need to bring anything at all to marriage?

--

NathanJ,

So, you believe that same-sex marriage will encourage lesbian couples to seek IVF, or increase its accessibility? What about the women already accessing it? I know of a lesbian couple who managed to acquire a sperm donation from the US with no troubles at all.

To put this into perspective, going by what you’re saying, you are wanting to deny equality to an entire demographic just because it might increase the number of children who don’t have the ability to find out who their biological father is.

What about the fact that allowing for same-sex marriage will lower the suicide rate within the gay community, going by what has happened in other countries? How about the right of children of gay people to not feel stigmatised by living in a society which says that their parents should not be allowed to get married?

Why don’t you just advocate for the right of children conceived via such means to locate their biological father? That way, you help all the children who are already living - whether or not their mothers are gay.

Something tells me surrogacy isn’t the real reason you’re going to vote ‘no’.

AJ Philips writes:
“Before one even gets to that question, one should ask why gay people need to bring anything at all to marriage?”

I would have thought that obvious.
If gay folk want to have the law changed, I presumed they think something positive might come from it.
It’s a perfectly legitimate and reasonable question.

The corollary might be: if they can’t answer that, then why should anyone bother.