Dear Julia, follow Obama and let me marry the man I love

Ryan says:

11:42am | 08/11/12

I wish it was something that I didnt have to give a toss about, but unfortunately until it happens, some people are going to have to do something about it.

Zac says:

11:46am | 08/11/12

But the less than 2% in media and canberristan thinks they run Australia and they have the right to dictate to us! This is like the climate scam in the making!

Noah says:

11:47am | 08/11/12

If 98% percent of Australians don’t give a toss, then why don’t 98% of Australians say “I don’t care.  Why not.?”

subotic says:

11:51am | 08/11/12

Dr. Zoidberg: [while inspecting Amy’s engagement ring from Bender] Such a stone! Is it real?

Dr. Zoidberg: Hooray!

Professor Farnsworth: Hooray denied! Need I remind you that robosexual marriage is illegal?

Turanga Leela: Not in Space Massachusetts.

Bender: You mean Space Tax-achusetts? No chance, judge-pants! We’re gonna fight to legalize it right here!

Hermes Conrad: Ya mon! Ya got to legalize it!

Amy Wong: We’re talking about robosexual marriage.

Hermes Conrad: We’re talking about lots of stuff.

TC says:

11:51am | 08/11/12

If you don’t give a toss, then why stand in the way…?

Anubis says:

12:20pm | 08/11/12

At Noah - precisely - I don’t care either way.

Gregg says:

12:20pm | 08/11/12

@TC
” If you don’t give a toss, then why stand in the way…? “
Who is standing in the way?, Julia?
Anubis has said he doesn’t give a toss which way it goes, my sentiments too for it is just a word ain’t it and there’re many heterosexuals about who are quite happy in living together without being married.

Rosie says:

12:21pm | 08/11/12

Anubis

It maybe an issue that only 2% of Australians care about but to that 2% it is something that is very dear to their hearts and should be dealt with in a civil matter by any Govt.

If there was a time to legislate gay marriage, this is it. The way I look at it is Labor is power and because their leader is out of the norm as she is an atheist, a misogamy/hater of marriage, childless and lives in a defacto relationship with her boyfriend it should easy for this Labor Govt to legislate gay marriage. Also having an alliance with the Greens will have this legislation sail through both houses. The ball will remain in Abbott’scourt to allow his back benches to cross the floor.

As usual Gillard is playing games and wants both Abbott and her to arrive at the same agreement for political reasons,  when she knows it is against Abbott’s catholic upbringing and that he believes that marriage is between a man and woman. If it was dear to the hearts of 98% of Australians, Gillard would have jumped at legalizing it in a heartbeat because it would have meant votes.

Why isn’t those that backed her Parliamentary tirade pressuring her for gay marriage? Why is the Coalition relied upon to do something about gay marriage when we know how they feel about it. Gillard doesn’t care how people portray her in society so should go ahead with legislating gay marriage.

For goodness sake this Labor Govt can at least do one right thing for a change and be remembered for it instead always “Bad Labor” what say Mattb?

taz says:

12:25pm | 08/11/12

i’ll be one i don’t care. This is one of the stupidist arguments in Australia. Why the hell does it even matter? marraige is a piece of paper and is totally meaningless. Stop making this into a political statement and just get on with your own lives.

Greg Hoffman says:

12:32pm | 08/11/12

I do hope Julia, listens to what is needed in this country and does the right thing to allow same sex marriage.  I have been discriminated because of my sexuality and bullied to the stage of where I lost having contact with my son because of me being gay today and I have not seen my son since he was 9 years of age…he will be 18 next year, he has been manipulated to hate me now because I am gay and as well live with HIV, but the family courts did not care about this and still took me away from my son. I have no such criminal record I was a gay parent just wanting to have contact with my son but was forced out of his life, where is the justice towards this ? Maybe if I had been allow to marry the same sex I may have given me more of a chance to have contact with my son…but i had 9 years of contact and then get told you are not allowed to see him because I am Gay and live with HIV, i don’t know how much time I have left in this world but you would think it would be important for a father and son to have that relationship.  Discrimination needs to stop

Markus says:

12:46pm | 08/11/12

@TC, unless Anubis is one of the 98 members of the HoR who voted down the bill, he isn’t.

Go away you pest says:

12:58pm | 08/11/12

According to the 2011 census, only 0.7% of couples were homosexual couples. To redefine Marriage just for 0.7% of the population is an absurd proposition. Just because those who live in the city, vote green, love socialism and have a journalism degree want it, doesn’t mean the whole country wants it. Apathy is the overriding feeling out there in the community. That apathy turns to annoyance and eventually hostility when 0.7% of people abuse their disproportionate access to the mass media to hector politicians and 99.3% of other couples for entirely personal purposes. You can’t even claim altruism given this is an issue that you will directly benefit from. What next; you’ve got an investment property on the central coast and you’d like 0.7% of Australia’s land-mass around it to be declared capital gains tax free?

neo says:

01:19pm | 08/11/12

There are more stoners than there are gay people, so what’s the point of talking about gay marriage before cannabis is made legal?

Non issue, no point wasting time discussing it.

John says:

01:32pm | 08/11/12

“How many states in Australia thus far? Zero.”

Thank.. God…

John says:

01:39pm | 08/11/12

@Go away you pest, Err I’m willing to bet a lot of the others support gay marriage even if they aren’t gay themselves…
Also if supposed figure of 98% not caring is even remotely correct then passing the law should be fine.

Shaun says:

01:59pm | 08/11/12

I think most Australians DO ‘give a toss’ about human rights, equality and discrimination.

Blazes says:

02:26pm | 08/11/12

I tend to agree with you Anubis! Not a significant proportion of Australians are passionate one way or the other, so the fact that the media keep pushing it is crazy.

And the replies to your post sum up the entire case for same-sex marriage: argumentum ad hominem and argumentum ad populam (both of which are logical fallacies).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Mick says:

02:29pm | 08/11/12

Since when is discrimination against 2% (or 07% according to another post) of our society permitted under our laws…?

I write discrinimation because marriage in this country is a legal union between 2 people and has nothing to do with religion (anymore). Although such union may have its origin in religion (I am not convinced that it didn’t exist before the presumed existence of Jesus) but it has now evolved into a legal union, most notably by John Howard. Note as well that certain religions allow bigamy,  yet by law we forbid that…

Donth says:

02:46pm | 08/11/12

If 98% of people don’t care then why do polls show that the majority of Australians support gay marrige?

Guru says:

02:47pm | 08/11/12

In spite of my misgivings that I may be troll-feeding, I would be very disappointed if 98% of this country couldn’t give a toss abput this.

Then again, reading come of the comments here, I wouldn’t be surprised. Still disappointed, but not surprised.
If we are going to quote spurious figures, lets start with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population, which makes up 2.5% of the Australian population. Shall we ignore them, as well? Attitudes like the one exhibited here would see them still classed as non-citizens. Their concerns are valid. Roughly 2% of the Australian Population live in Tasmania (495,351 of 21507717).  Why do we even bother keeping it as a state? Because their concerns are valid. In 2010, in Australia, there were 143,500 deaths, of which only 260 were homicides. That’s roughly only 0.2%. Should we even bother investigating (or reporting on) this insignificant number of incidents?

Ignorance is a dangerous thing, but it’s ignorance and you know no better, so maybe it can be forgiven. Public defending ignorance cannot.

andye says:

03:19pm | 08/11/12

@Anubis - “Another article about a subject 98% of Australians couldn’t give a toss about which way it goes.”

Interesting. The old making sh** up trick. 98%? Speak for yourself, champ.

I won’t vote for a party that does not support gay marriage. Not ever. I know a hell of a lot of people who also support it. I don’t however think that because most of the people I know support it that it has 98% support nationally. THAT WOULD BE STUPID.

Two Cents worth says:

03:28pm | 08/11/12

I write to you as a taxpaying citizen, a father, a grandfather, a son, a member of the heterosexual community, frustrated with the attempts of certain members and groups within the LGBTI community who will not leave the issue of ssm alone.
This issue has been the due course in Federal Parliament and has been voted DOWN, by a majority. NOTE: Majority being the operative word. No matter how much you state that ssm has majority support there is no tangible proof to support that claim.
The advocates of this issue have only served to create divisiveness within society as people tire of the constant push to please the whims of a minority. Your persistence that other Countries are accepting of ssm and have instituted it into law serve only to say, go to those countries and get married if it is so all fired important.
No right thinking person in Australia would want to deprive you of equal rights - the catch here is that Marriage is not a Human Right as deemed by the UNHRC. Please understand that I, like many others have no axe to grind with Gay and Lesbian people, we are all alike, we all bleed red blood and we are all (mostly), honest decent people trying to get on with life.
You state that an August Galaxy poll showed 64% of Australians agree with your position. I contend that the poll you refer to was of a sample of 1060 people (were they all Australian citizens? where is the proof of the sample demographics?publish the breakdown of this poll!). In any case your cause would have been better served at a referendum and voted on by the people, not the politicians, something I suggested in earlier posts.Even the House of Representatives online poll ( the precursor to the Parliamentary vote) was 64.3% (some 177600) in favour of ssm, or 0.81% of the total population.
If passed by popular vote then people like me have no issue, we accept what is passed into law. Laws of the people, by the people, for the people. Enshrined I believe in the American Constitution, not ours unfortunately.
So by all means continue on with the rhetoric, but until you get the true majority on side you are wasting valuable resources of time and energy and might I add, upsetting a lot of readers (in my opinion).
As for the problems you and others faced in your childhood years it is tragic that many of your peers had no understanding of what you were living through, trying to cope with teenage pressure alone without the added weight of homosexuality bearing down on you. From what I have read and endeavoured to understand, many teens feel a weight of guilt or non acceptance within peer groups, trying to comprehend their sexuality which runs against the tide of many of their friends.
For what you may have suffered I am truly sorry, but you have lived through it, time to move on. We have all lived through things in our lives that we would sooner forget, some have made us stronger, wiser, just for the experience alone, but we do not always share these moments in public.
Your final line, “will you be a sheep or a shepherd?” in my opinion applies in no way whatsoever to Julia Gillard. The Christians reading this post will understand and perhaps, hopefully, many others.
I trust the moderator will approve this post as it has been said on many posts gone by that this paper is left leaning. Hopefully my post will promote some thought,maybe not!

John G. says:

03:36pm | 08/11/12

I’m straight, not that it should matter, but I have a lesbian relative. I’m also an atheist. I can marry, she can’t. Clearly it’s not a religious issue.

Sterile hetrosexuals can marry. Clearly it’s not a parenting issue.

So, why exactly can’t homosexuals marry? Because we’re a nation of populous bigots with a large right wing christian majority that dictate to the many, and spineless leaders that put being popular and re-elected before doing what’s actually right.

meinsydney says:

04:01pm | 08/11/12

98%???  I’d say most people do care, and thankfully the majority are in favor of it.  I’m heterosexual and I care a lot.  I don’t want to be part of a society that denies equal human rights to anyone on the basis that they are a minority.  I don’t want to see teenagers kill themselves because they are bullied and led to believe society sees them as having less worth than a heterosexual.  The blood of every kid that kills themselves over this issue, which shouldn’t be an issue in this day and age, is now on Gillard’s hands.  And how Penny Wong and others can respect a “leader” who considers them less than equals based on their sexuality is beyond me.  I have no respect for any of them.  I do hope Labor does the right thing and legislates in favor of it.  As someone else said, at least she’d go down in history as having done something right, because right now her only legacy will be that she was our first self imposed prime minister, and will likely wind up being the “leader” who sent Labor to their worst defeat in history.

Luke says:

05:10pm | 08/11/12

It’s actually closer to 90%... nearly 10% of the population openly identify as gay or bi-sexual. If you add the friends and family that care about their loved ones, plus the number that are in the closet and don’t have the guts or support to come out, I’d say that number goes up quite a bit.

Regardless - no-one should be treated as second-class, and it’s more than a word. If you’re married, and your partner dies, you get everything my friend. The living gay partner has to FIGHT their partners parents, brothers, sisters, cousins, third-cousins removed in court if anyone related by blood tries to claim. It’s absolutely not right!

*I* care says:

05:16pm | 08/11/12

@ Guru: 
Thank you for such a well considered and well-written argument.  I couldn’t agree with you more.

@ subotic:
And thank you for giving me a giggle in the midst of all these arguments!

For the record, I’m totally for gay marriage.  I’m not gay myself, nor do I have any gay friends, so my opinion isn’t personally motivated, I just think it’s logical for everyone to have the same rights.

James says:

05:42pm | 08/11/12

So true Anubis, so true. Oh, hang on I lie, 2% of the population is interested and 1% believes that ... ah um, ah ... um ... sorry ...

BTW: Just out of interest; when you look at Obama and Julia Gillard, in terms of a sunny disposition, i.e. smiling, generally waving a greeting at all and sundry, taking criticism in its stride (remember Obama politely brushing aside Jeremiah White in 2008?). Does either of them carry dark scowls, bags, black eyes, abusive sneering temperaments? Does either point fingers like tallons whilst glaring with jet black eyeballs, when abusing, sneering and making accusations? Have you seen either acting the victim lately, inparticular when 1 is an actual minority with a history that would give that person every right to feel everything I ask of in this question and the other does not. Does either have any right to express a general right to victimhood based on that history? Does either when ever they speak seem to just say something divisive and abusive? Does either generally believe they are in the role they are in so as to unite an already divided world / nation and to do the opposite would be in direct violation of what any leader should strive to do for their nation in that position as its leader, otherwise why be there in the first place?

When making your choice, then ask yourself are there really any comparisons between the two in so far that if the US campaign strategy was replicated here it would work in an Australian election or are the two like absolute chalk and cheese?

Geoff says:

05:50pm | 08/11/12

Hey Anubis, human rights and equality are important even if it was only 1% of the population being affected.

Another Chris says:

12:25pm | 08/11/12

I’m seriously fed up with media outlets shoving their opinion down our throats. Packer/Murdoch et al, stick to the news, not trying to sway politicians with your own agenda. Your agenda is to report news. Go away and improve the quality of journalism for us please….
Another thing, America has bigger problems at the moment- Like avoiding financial catastrophe and rolling out obamacare.

Laura says:

12:46pm | 08/11/12

“I’m seriously fed up with media outlets shoving their opinion down our throats.”

You should probably stop reading opinion pieces on The Punch then Chris.

Wizard says:

01:06pm | 08/11/12

Completely agree Chris
This is crap journalism.

Greg says:

01:08pm | 08/11/12

What he doesn’t mention is that this is the first time that any state has voted in favour of gay marriage, and all of the votes were by narrow margins, which could easily be overturned again at the next elections.

The other seven states have had gay marriage forced upon them by legislators, without any public vote.

And THIRTY US states have voted to ban gay marriage in their constitutions.

The real story paints a different picture.

Another Chris says:

01:27pm | 08/11/12

Laura, did you see the front page of news dot com.au? Look at that and tell me they have no agenda- I was bought to the punch because of this page. I have no issue with opinion pieces fyi.

TRBNGR says:

11:53am | 08/11/12

Because the legislation say so.

And there’s you’re legal reason.

Zac says:

12:06pm | 08/11/12

It is legal to kill (abortion) another living human being but does it make it right? How are laws formed? For example: laws in many of the former and present Atheist countries are formed based on social darwinism - and that ended up killing millions to create Atheistic utopia around the world. Does that make it legal?  Laws are not formed out of thin air. it is formed on the religious, cultural and personal belief system of a country. So all this legal stuff wouldn’t work with me.

JT says:

12:07pm | 08/11/12

Because unlike the Macquarie dictionary, words do have definitions and marriage is defined around the world for the last x years as between a man and a woman.

Maybe the homosexual community can instead explain why parallel legislation ascribing them all the rights and responsibilities of marriage but without the word marriage is not good enough for them?

Once they can do that, I think you’d most would a) support it or b) continue not to care but either way I have yet to hear such their explanation?

JB says:

12:11pm | 08/11/12

Why is bigamy still, in this day and age, not legal? It baffles me! I would love to hear any legal, not religious or personal belief but LEGAL, reason why two or more people who love each other shouldn’t be allowed to marry more than 1 person.

Gregg says:

12:15pm | 08/11/12

Well yes, putting aside religious or personal reasons, it is quite simple.
Under the marriage act as it now stands, marriage is between two humans of opposite sex.
Simply put, that is the legal situation and it will remain so until legislation is put through parliament that allows anything else.

Rose says:

12:50pm | 08/11/12

Gregg and JT, as long as you acknowledge that it was John Howard and Phillip Ruddock who changed the legal definition of marriage to make it between a man and a woman.
They added this clause:
Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
Certain unions are not marriages. A union solemnised in a foreign country between: (a) a man and another man; or (b) a woman and another woman; must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia.

To this day I cannot understand their logic,  it seems they did this purely and simply to entrench discrimination of same sex couples.  Reasons of religion, morality or slippery slope are not valid as clearly they have acted in a way which offends all of those 3 considerations in many other areas!!

Get a grip of reality moron says:

01:00pm | 08/11/12

Read the laws of our country that are in line with not one but every religious belief in the world. Homosexuality is sick and evil and the day you weak bastards roll over to this sort of shit you may as well legalise murder. Get a life moron the vast amjority that these clowns talk about is all t=in their own head as they try to justify their sick behaviour. For the record how dare the yanks try tell us and dictate to us what we should and shouldn’t be doing, just how sick their society is. It is full of diseased bodies and minds and it is also showing in their financial position. They live with their heads up their own ass. SO if you want to live like they do then piss off and move there you f***wit.

Get a grip of reality moron says:

01:00pm | 08/11/12

Read the laws of our country that are in line with not one but every religious belief in the world. Homosexuality is sick and evil and the day you weak bastards roll over to this sort of shit you may as well legalise murder. Get a life moron the vast amjority that these clowns talk about is all t=in their own head as they try to justify their sick behaviour. For the record how dare the yanks try tell us and dictate to us what we should and shouldn’t be doing, just how sick their society is. It is full of diseased bodies and minds and it is also showing in their financial position. They live with their heads up their own ass. SO if you want to live like they do then piss off and move there you f***wit.

JT says:

01:15pm | 08/11/12

Irrelevant so I take it you have no answer Rose. Any one else care to provide an explanation?

SteelersFan says:

02:18pm | 08/11/12

@Rose, we should also question Nicola Roxon. As shadow attorney general she supported Howard’s amendment to the marriage act.
She is an embarrassment to the Labor party and to all fair-minded Australians.

Laura says:

02:19pm | 08/11/12

JT - a “civil union” and a marriage is not the same thing. By saying that gays can get a civil union but not a marriage, is like making the parents of adoptees be called “care givers” instead of parents.

David says:

02:35pm | 08/11/12

@Get a grip you’re the one that’s sick and evil for comparing the love of 2 gay people to murder. Gay marriage doesn’t harm another person like murder does.

JT says:

02:46pm | 08/11/12

@Laura

It is exactly the same thing under the law. Marriage on the other hand has never been anything but between a male and female. It is that word you want to redefine. Why? I have yet to see anywhere an explanation for this.

Rose says:

02:54pm | 08/11/12

Ok JT, I’ll see if I can explain it for you, but you’re going to have to start thinking about things through the eyes of another to even get close to understanding the answer.
So long as heterosexual people are permitted to marry and homosexual people are not, homosexual people are denied the right to have their relationships valued and respected to the same level as heterosexual relationships. Further, it allows people to see homosexual relationships as being of lesser value than heterosexual relationships, it is like an invisible wall that homosexual people cannot break through in terms of being considered equal in every way to heterosexual people (sort of like the female’s glass ceiling). The thing is that allowing same sex marriage you are taking nothing away from opposite sex marriage, and yet all the married people fighting against it seem so insecure in their own skins that they cannot see why others would want what they have. Gay marriage strengthens heterosexual marriage, it strengthens it by holding it up as something to be valued and cherished, something worth fighting for!!
The flow on from this is that as kids and teenagers are growing up, those with confused feelings about their sexuality, and those who identify as being gay, may feel the same shame and experience the same exclusions as those from previous generations. They will be part of a second society, one not quite as good as the ‘normal’ society, one that, even in this day and age, is discriminated against by their very own government.
For you it’s one simple word, marriage, for people denied it it is everything that it represents and more.  It is the thing that keeps them in their place, separate and not quite as important and respectable as others. It is part of the stigma and exclusion that leads young homosexuals to think about and act on their thoughts of self harm and suicide, that leads them to try and hide who they are that leads them to make decisions that are not in their own best interests, just to ‘fit in’.
I’m not gay and I hope that I have done their fight justice but from where I’m sitting, this is not an issue just about marriage, it is about accepting and acknowledging the right of all people to live in a way that is compatible with the natural state of their being, that it is about being who they are, the person God (for those that believe) made them to be!!!

Rose says:

03:00pm | 08/11/12

SteelersFan, we should question every single Parliamentarian on what their stance is and WHY. Few would be able to use the religion defence, most would be much like the rest of us and be fairly non-religious. I can deal with people who disagree with my point of view, just not those who disagree without a solid reason. Political expediency, maintaining the status quo, slipery slope….all those are not valid reasons, they are cop-outs!!

GigaStar says:

03:28pm | 08/11/12

Rose “so insecure in their own skins that they cannot see why others would want what they have”

That’s where you lost me. Piss-poor excuse for an affirmative argument. Insulting the other side does nothing to firm up your argument.

Jinx says:

03:36pm | 08/11/12

Rose - “For you it’s one simple word, marriage, for people denied it it is everything that it represents and more” - no Rose. For most heteros it is more than a word. Why gives you the idea that gays hold it in higher esteem than heteros?

Your arguments assume that 100% of gays want to be able to marry. There is a movement amongst them that want the equivalent of marriage but for it to be called something else because they realise what the institution stands for to heteros. When you listen to their argument it is alot more articulate than yours.

“I can deal with people who disagree with my point of view, just not those who disagree without a solid reason.” - no Rose you can’t. You just called them insecure. You haven’t produced a solid reason for gay marriage other than they just want it which isn’t a reason at all. Pot-kettle-black.

Laura says:

03:41pm | 08/11/12

JT the law, isn’t the point. As long as the term ‘marriage’ can’t apply to same sex unions, it sends a statement that same sex marriage is < heterosexual marriage.

The word means as much to them as it does to you,  it represents someone telling them that the lifestyle with the person they love is somehow of less value because of their gender & unworthy of the term ‘marriage’ so they have the term ‘civic union’ thrown at them to shut them up…

The definition of words change with the times, so saying that the definition of marriage is between a man & a woman is really not valid..

JT says:

05:50pm | 08/11/12

@Laura

The law is the point. Outside of the definition/tradition/religious arguments, the only one that truly matters is the law and the law currently gives them the same rights and responsibilities as married couples.

No it sends the message that marriage IS heterosexual. It always has been.

‘‘The word means as much to them as it does to you’‘

No it doesn’t. If it truly did they would not be campaigning to change a hetreosexual tradition. They would be campaigning for their own tradition. They don’t and thus far have not. That suggests to me the meaning of marriage is far less important to them than the ‘‘cause’’ they fight for.

‘‘The definition of words change with the times, so saying that the definition of marriage is between a man & a woman is really not valid.. ‘’

It is very valid because it is the traditional/religious/secular meaning of the word. You don’t just change words because you don’t like the meaning of them.

It is a poor argument to make regardless because if you follow through on it than others could simply argue those words the homosexual community rightly find offensive are not offensive at all, because we’ve just changed the meaning of them.

JT says:

06:02pm | 08/11/12

@Rose

Jinx and GigaStar have said similar to what I would have said in reply to you.

Just to add further to their comments, your argument consists of nothing but denigrating the heterosexual community for placing an importance on marriage and then suggesting marriage is so important to homosexuals that it is the panacea to all their alleged problems.

You have provided me absolutely no explanation as to why the homosexual community wants to change a heterosexual tradition (religious or secular) rather than create their own.

Jimmy says:

12:23pm | 08/11/12

I’m fairly certain she’s all for it. But if she publicly voices her opinion she will lose even more Christian “I dont ever go to church but God and Allen Jones say being gay is bad” voters.

JB says:

01:00pm | 08/11/12

To have equality i should be able to have more then 1 husband then. Is that right?
To listen to the people she must listen to all the people and the only way to do that is by a referendum. Not an election or we could have another “Carbon tax” commitment and we all know how much that promise was worth?
“Love is love” I love my dog, may i have sex with him, please change the law, I love the 14 year old down the street please change the law, I love 3 men and want to make them all my husbands please change the law.  Where do we draw a line? Well actually the lines are drawn but your not happy with that, you want to open pandoras box!

subotic says:

01:29pm | 08/11/12

Even if she personally does not agree with same sex marriage, she must now listen to the people.

She doesn’t have to do shit. Equality is a myth, and the sooner you work that out, the better off you’ll be.

As for “love is love”, so is stupidity….

chiron1980 says:

01:37pm | 08/11/12

Jb you’re an idiot. Marriage is to the exclusion of all others, hence bigamy can’t exist legally. Also, in cases of bigamy there is usually a power imbalance making any legal contract signed as a result, null and void. Your dog can’t consent, and can’t sign a marriage licence. The 14 yeard old down the street is a minor and though they could consent, the law recognises the inherent power imbalance where minors are involved and makes such consent null and void until they are no longer a minor. Your argument holds no weight.

Amy says:

01:42pm | 08/11/12

@JB The legalising of gay marriage will lead to legalisation of beastiality and paedophilia? Seriously? Where’s the link?!

scott says:

02:05pm | 08/11/12

@ bigwords
“Love is love”

Marriage does not equal love

JB says:

02:12pm | 08/11/12

@chiron1980, your the fool! it was a BROAD example. “Marriage is to the exclusion of all others” Well you seem to like to pick and choose elements of marriage that suit and exclude the rest. You want the law changed and yes those other examples are illegal but like what you want the law too can be changes which is the point i was making but clearly you are too stupid to see that. Clearly your a hetrophobe.
@Amy, see above and get a brain cell!

Matt says:

02:18pm | 08/11/12

bigwords, are you labelling “the people” as the 0.7% of the population that want to marry their gay partner?

Steve of QBN says:

02:50pm | 08/11/12

@chiron1980.  It has only been a recent change that marriage under 16 was not allowed.  Once a child hit puberty, they were considered adults and could marry.  In some societies that is still the case.  In Spain today the legal consenting age is 12.  In Ireland it’s 17. In the US in the 1880’s the age was 10 to 12.  Now it depends on the State where it ranges form 15 to 18.  All this means that you can marry at that age.  Sure, you may need State permission but generally (unless there is a huge age difference) they get approval.

Some cultures have polygamous marriages today and even though it is not legal here,  I’m sure that it occurs here.  Either because they were married before they came here or they just ignore the law. 

While you quote “power imbalance”, the reality is that many cultures exist in Australia and they generally obey the law, even the ones they think are misguided.  Allowing for non-traditional marriage for one group (gays) because not allowing may infringe their human rights can open the way for “established” non-traditional marriage (polygamy for example) because to not do so will infringe the human rights (usually based on religious grounds) of those who are seeking the change.

egg says:

11:54am | 08/11/12

“But I don’t want them to!” *stamps foot like a giant baby*

I thought I’d condense your argument for you, Zac. It’s much neater this way.

Zac says:

01:01pm | 08/11/12

@egg,

Whatever way you condense it (homosexual marriage), it wouldn’t still look natural!

Joel M-J says:

01:14pm | 08/11/12

@Egg +1

@Zac,

Going off your previous rant about “Atheist Countries”, I’m quite certain you are a ridiculous troll who is resistant to change that will almost certainly not effect you in the slightest.

Gay marriage will not hurt anyone. I promise you. God is not going to strike you down in a fit of wrath, and Julia Gillard is not going to wipe out an entire people based off of Social Darwinism.

For the record, Nazi Germany (the most famous proponent of Social Darwinism) was a Christian nation.

fml says:

01:29pm | 08/11/12

Zac,

It is natural, it happens in nature and it predates your male/female only version of marriage.

quit living in the past dude, well a small defined portion of the past, if you live a little further in the past you would be alright.

Jo says:

01:40pm | 08/11/12

‘not natural’ - so true, I mean I (like all gays) was artificially created in a lab!

Zac says:

01:49pm | 08/11/12

fml,

“quit living in the past dude, well a small defined portion of the past, if you live a little further in the past you would be alright. “

I live with a wonderful and loving wife, dude or dudette. If that looks past to you, you need a bit of education. You should try “hetero appreciation course”. With no apologies! Zac.

Zac says:

01:55pm | 08/11/12

@Joel M-J,

“For the record, Nazi Germany (the most famous proponent of Social Darwinism) was a Christian nation.”

But Hitler was such a wonderful Christian he went about killing every priest he could get his own and plundered and reduced every Church. Until he got into power and established himself, he sang praises of the Church but ones in power he destroyed the Christians. He explicitly declared Christianity is too weak for his beliefs - to exterminate jews and the society he want to build. His core ideology was social darwinism and eugenics!! No amount of spin would cover this up.

fml says:

02:14pm | 08/11/12

Zac,

Homosexual marriage was legal in ancient rome, and it became one of the biggest civilisations the world has ever seen. It wasn’t made illegal till 400 years after the birth of jesus (Who incidently hasn’t produced a birth certificate, so his prophet status is in dispute). So really, what I am trying to say is us pro gay marriage peeps want our word back.

Thankyou.

James1 says:

02:19pm | 08/11/12

I am also married to a woman, and we have two daughters.  That does not make my relationship to my wife superior to a gay relationship, or a polyamorous relationship.  Gay people getting married would have no effect on my relationship.  Marriages involving more than two people will have no effect on my relationship.  Whether or not it looks “natural” to you or I, as married heterosexuals, is irrelevant.  No one is asking you to appreciate it - all they are asking is that you afford them the same individual liberty that you afford yourself.  Do unto others and all that, after all.  And while we are on the teachings of Jesus Christ, who could forget his words on homosexuality: “...”  Oh, that’s right, he said nothing about gay people.  My bad.

That is fml’s point about you living in the past - a past where you got to control the actions of others due to your personal beliefs.  That is not the world we live in any more - we have a thing known as the secular state, where religions are not allowed to impose their beliefs upon citizens.

Joel M-J says:

02:53pm | 08/11/12

@Zac

That’s why the Catholic church gave all those Nazis safe passage then huh? And why Catholic Italy under Mussolini was closely allied to Hitler?

Dude… just cos your pastor says it, doesn’t make it true.

Joel M-J says:

02:54pm | 08/11/12

@Zac

That’s why the Catholic church gave all those Nazis safe passage then huh? And why Catholic Italy under Mussolini was closely allied to Hitler?

Dude… just cos your pastor says it, doesn’t make it true.

Zac says:

03:33pm | 08/11/12

@James1,

“I am also married to a woman, and we have two daughters.  That does not make my relationship to my wife superior to a gay relationship,”

Your are married to a women and the outcome is: 2 daughters and I am married to a women and I have few kids as well. And it is people like us who keeps the world going - yes some heteros don’t have kids but MILLIONS do - not the homosexual. This is just one reason why heterosexual marriage is superior.

“That is not the world we live in any more - we have a thing known as the secular state, where religions are not allowed to impose their beliefs upon citizens”

Secular state was the invention of Christians but it has become the tool of Atheists to impose Atheism (U.K is one such example). So there is no such thing as secularism in the original form.

Andrew says:

04:27pm | 08/11/12

@Zack Hitler had a pact with the Catholic church. They worked together. The church helped the nazis get out of Germany when it all went tits up.

subotic says:

11:52am | 08/11/12

Turanga Leela: I’m going to remind Fry of his humanity, the way only a woman can.

Prof. Hubert J. Farnsworth: You’re going to do his laundry?

Tom says:

12:56pm | 08/11/12

Currently everyone who has heterosexual sex is equal. Anyone else will just have to make do with a second rate legal definition.

Louise says:

12:07pm | 08/11/12

Careful there, John. “Small-minded”? That’s what you’re calling me.

The “mad monk”? Not sounding too tolerant, mate.

“Something that should not be voted on, should not even need to be discussed….should be just pushed through” - aha! Thank you for the revealing honesty, at least.  What you describe ain’t no democracy - so I’m guessing you’re advocating something else.  In a democracy - in any free, just society - *no-one*‘s opinion is ‘invalid’ by your say-so. 

You - like so many of your ‘identity politics’ brethren - are the one sounding zealous - *frighteningly* so.

JB says:

12:29pm | 08/11/12

Oh John, you call Abbott the “Mad monk” (nice and personally insulting very big of you) for standing up for what he believes in and making decisions on those beliefs yet Penny Wong and Louise Pratt do EXACTLY the same thing and you are incredibly silent!!!
Can you spell Hypocrite?

Rose says:

12:59pm | 08/11/12

I’m not a fan of the Mad Monk moniker, like the insults directed at Gillard it only serves to reduce the debate to the level of schoolyard bickering. However, the description of small minded does seem fairly accurate, those opposing gay marriage only seem to see the world through their own preconceived ideas, they don’t try to understand it from the point of view of those that the law impacts, same sex couples and their families. 
I’m heterosexual and have been married for 23 years, I was raised a Catholic and still have a lot of respect for much of what I was taught through my Catholic schooling and in Church. I have however, spoken to people affected and over time my views have changed and now I can’t think of a single argument that opposes same sex marriage being based on anything other than small mindedness!

Joel M-J says:

01:16pm | 08/11/12

Careful there, Louise. You may actually, indeed, be small minded on this issue. I for one think you are.

Louise says:

01:28pm | 08/11/12

Okay, Rose, well I’ve known and liked plenty of homosexual people, heard all the same-sex marriage arguments - and my views on marriage *haven’t* changed. Noone’s ever told me I’m small-minded - so while you mightn’t consider it an insult, it’s hardly complimentary and it still represents an attempt to shut down debate with someone who’s thought it all through and just happens to have come to a different conclusion than you.

Homosexuals *are* different from heterosexuals - funny, it used to be something they celebrated, trumpeted even.  They have the same legal right as everyone else to marry someone of the opposite sex - as most people who marry do - but obviously that’s not what they would want - and nor should they have to.  Equally, they have the right to live with someone of the same sex, with all the de facto legal rights that attach to such a relationship.

I would vote for civil unions as I believe they would give official recognition to a loving, committed partnership between two people who freely choose a relationship that is and always has been different from the norm.  Marriage, however, has always been between man and woman, is steeped in religious tradition and valued for the its critical role in the furtherance of the social institution of the family.

I say this as a woman, a heterosexual, a Catholic, a conservative, a free thinker - and a citizen of a democracy.  And I’ll be (oops, was going to say buggered   ) if I let you or any other bigmouth fake-toleranti call me small-minded for it.

Louise says:

01:48pm | 08/11/12

Joel M-J,

And you base your belief that I’m “small-minded” on what?

I, for one, think you’re judgmental.  See how pointless tit-for-tat is?

Joel M-J says:

02:06pm | 08/11/12

It’s pointless for a reason Louise: I don’t bother to argue with bigoted people.

Louise says:

02:41pm | 08/11/12

No, Joel M-J, you still haven’t said why I’m “small-minded” - or now “bigoted”.  Which I would suggest makes *you* a bigot yourself.

And I notice you’re able to hold out promises to people further up about what will happen the future.  Bit of a god, yourself are you? As well as a judgmental type who favours unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks?

Joel M-J says:

03:19pm | 08/11/12

Okay Louise. You win. One argument coming up.

You are small minded because, some way, some how, you believe it is right that not all people in this world should have the same rights that you have.

You believe that marriage should only be between men and women because… of god? A 2000 year old book? My bad. 1700 year old book.

You are bigoted because of the discriminatory nature of your intolerance towards other people wanting the right of marriage that you enjoy and take for granted.

Am I judging you? Yeah, I really am, and I don’t apologize for it.

Homosexual teens are 5 times more likely to attempt suicide over heterosexual teens. Common reasons cited are: The overwhelming feeling of being a ‘social freak’. The misconception of not fitting into this society and not belonging. Being made to feel ‘un-normal’ by others.

The Marriage Act reinforces this horrible state of mind these kids suffer from. The fact that it their insecurities are epitomized in Government Legislation!

And for what? Because religion doesn’t approve? Because people like yourself feel it will undermine your own marriage? Your marriage will continue to be what you make it to be, regardless of legislative changes.

Changing the legislation will send a very strong message that “it’s okay to be different. It’s okay to be homosexual. You are a valued member of society and are considered equal, unconditionally.”

But you don’t believe that do you Louise? Whether it be through ‘religious reasoning’ or outdated conservative views, you seem to think the ‘sanctity of marriage’ is more important than young lives.

If it saves even one life, then to hell with your views Louise. I’m calling you a narrow minded bigot, and the above is my reasoning for it.

Did that go the way you thought it would Louise?

Ugh says:

05:31pm | 08/11/12

Joel M-J
You expect people to listen, respect and follow YOUR opinion yet you don’t listen nor do you have respect for others’ opinions.
I’m a married, catholic woman who has a gay sister, a gay brother and both my parents are from different countries. My friends are all mixed – gay, straight, catholic, Buddhist..shall I go on? And my gay friends don’t want to get married – they are quite happy with their lifelong partners and don’t need the ‘word’ marriage emblazoned on a piece of paper. Get a tattoo, write it in the sky..I don’t care. Civil union is what you should be fighting for because marriage is a legal term – not a religious term. ‘Marriage’ is between a man and a woman under government law and TO ME ‘marriage’ is a devotion, a life promise, a unity between a man and woman under religion.  What about our rights as men and women? As religious people? I stood before a priest and married my husband and declared my love in front of my friends and family. I made promises for a life time in the house of god. Where are my rights to keep that special? To keep that a sacrament?
I judge no one except stupid people like you that make things worse for people in minority groups. And we have bigger problems than this that actually affect things…being offended because you can’t get what you want isn’t on the PM’s priority list.

Angry_Of_Mayfair says:

11:52am | 08/11/12

Just as I resent religions telling me who I may or may not love and actively campaigning against me. Get over yourself. You see, THEIR freedoms (tax exemption being one) should NOT be used to persecute others.

James says:

11:57am | 08/11/12

Both of the recent bills passed into federal government made way for religious freedom in allowing churches to abstain from performing same-sex unions. As for churches, if I remember right, actual percentage of weddings happening these days performed by religious parties was down to around 30-35% so it’s not like anyone else is getting married in church anyway.

James1 says:

12:26pm | 08/11/12

“I would support Gay Marriage if a solemn oath was taken that no one would march into a Mosque, or Catholic Church and demand to be married. I would not see religions attacked by civil legal actions”

As far as I can see, that is the only position that is compatible with a philosophical outlook based on maximising the freedom of individuals.  I’m often surprised that more conservatives don’t take such a position on this subject.  Once you take forcing religious institutions to act against their beliefs out of the equation, there is no logical reason to oppose the legalisation of gay marriage, polygamy and polyandry.  Unless of course your intention is to force your religious beliefs onto other, in which case you cannot claim to genuinely support individual liberty.

PJ says:

01:19pm | 08/11/12

James & James1

.... And I have supported Gay Marriage in polls and petitions on the understanding that there would be no pressure to bear on religious groups.

As far as I am aware, the catholic church and Muslim Councils have made statements to their communities along the lines of ‘it’s not for us.’ They are required to provide guidance to their believers. But they have not actively campaigned against the Bills in the political mainstream.

What threatens my support is the views of the Socialist Left in the Gillard Government, that Religious belief and Religions are exploitative, corrupt organisations, pebbling fairy stories.

The Gillard Government says it wants to create a multicultural society, yet it fails to understand that religion is culture, they cannot be separated in most instances.

Angry of Mayfair clearly sees the issue as an opportunity to attack Religious institutions.

James1 says:

01:52pm | 08/11/12

To be honest PJ, I have no idea what Angry is saying.  I think you are right - it was a chance to have a spray at religion.

Angry_Of_Mayfair says:

03:27pm | 08/11/12

Sooo…..stating a fact is “attacking” religion/s? Ploise exploin!

Ryan says:

11:48am | 08/11/12

That seems so reasonable when you put it that way.

Tootsie says:

11:52am | 08/11/12

Next they’ll want to abolish Mothers day and Fathers day so same sex couples aren’t discriminated against.

Tubesteak says:

11:55am | 08/11/12

” If you don’t give into my whims and fancies, Australia is not a democracy and you are a religious nutter”

Technically, this is true.

Democracy is rule by the will of the majority. If 64% of people favour it then that’s a majority and the law should side with them.

Bobkat says:

11:57am | 08/11/12

Whim and fancies? Far out Zac, I hope you don’t use this term to describe the marriages of your nearest and dearest.

James1 says:

12:19pm | 08/11/12

To put his comments into context, Zac is a proponent of theocracy, and an opponent of the enlightenment and the secularisation of politics it brought about.  Keep that in mind when you read his comments, and they begin to make sense, of a sort.

Zac says:

01:16pm | 08/11/12

@James1.

“To put his comments into context, Zac is a proponent of theocracy, and an opponent of the enlightenment and the secularisation of politics it brought about.”

Speak for yourself James. If it was not for Christians, the Church and State there would never be separate. So your theocracy claims are utter rubbish. I have substantiated this here over and over again many times with many proofs. Western civilisation, science and secularisation etc is not the result of enlightment rather the efforts of Church and Christians.

I oppose the new age secularism coz it is a back door means to install Athiesm. So I want nothing to do with it. Where ever Atheism marched, it thrashed the freedoms and rights of people. Atheism and Democracy is not compatible and never will be. So thank God for Christians!!!

James1 says:

01:50pm | 08/11/12

Rubbish, Zac.  Secularism is, and always has been, the separation of church and state, where citizens are free to practice any religion or none, and where the state does not force the trappings of religion onto its citizens.

If you support this, then I retract my statement where I say you support theocracy.

However, what you say about secularism is utterly incorrect, and it seems your many comments on opposing secularism are premised on a fundamental misunderstanding of secularism, the enlightenment, and history.  Never have you offered any kind of proof for your arguments, and any “proof” you have attempted to offer seems to be premised on a fundamental misunderstanding on your part of the nature of evidence.  I suggest you do some reading before commenting further.  Your lack of knowledge about the society you live in and its development since religion took a back seat in the role of government is quite astounding.  You must rely on some pretty biased sources.

Zac says:

03:15pm | 08/11/12

@James1,

Your defintion of secularism is quite close, except for the word “force”. Christianity is the very basis of western civilisation. However, in such a civilisation one does have a right to believe or not believe in a god or
religion (which includes Atheism) or ideology. Thank God for Christians. However, sadly such secularism doesn’t exist. No wonder I passionately oppose and look forward to defeat the present day secularism (Atheism).

Here is Lord Melvyn Bragg of Wigton’s (is an accomplished writer and broadcaster whose latest cause is defending the historical importance of the King James Bible.) interview on lateline with Emma Alberici on 20/03/2012: (this will give the readers some clue where secularism/Atheism is heading)

“When this anniversary came up I started to think about it, and I thought, what’s happened is that the secularisation of society in my country is less and less religious, and then the atheists are getting the megaphone.

If people want to be atheists that’s fine, it’s a respectable position. But this business of hammering religions, especially Christianity, was not only not fair, it was wrong. It was profoundly wrong. And if you get your history wrong in you’re in terrible trouble. As all countries know, when they conceal their history and they get it wrong, it catches up with them and they get in trouble.

And this erasing of the power of that particular book, that particular Bible is very, very serious matter for anybody interested in what’s happened in the 400 years in at least three ways.

The King James Bible gave to the English-speaking world the basis of its language in Helen… authors all over the place, basis of its language - all the idioms, more than Shakespeare and so on. The turns of phrase, the stories and so on.

More important than that, it was the instrument by which the greatest abomination of mankind, ever since we know anything about civilisation was abolished, and that’s slavery.

Every civilisation we know about had slavery, everyone. In the late 18th and 19th century, through the Bible, slavery was abolished - through the Wilberforce faction in Britain, through similar factions in America and the [inaudible], and through the African slaves themselves who were converted to Christianity, who used the King James Bible as a liberation ideology.

The God had said to Moses to go to Pharaoh, “Let my people go!” and he did, and took them out of slavery you will remember. Moses was the apotheosis of the liberator, right up to Martin Luther King Junior. And that led to the abolition ...

Now, you read now it’s all to do with the Enlightenment, it’s all to do with ... no it isn’t! It wouldn’t have happened if people had not used that book and the power still in that book and the influence of that book still had among most people in the English-speaking world in the 18th century. That’s one thing that happened.”

Joel M-J says:

03:34pm | 08/11/12

@Zac

Wow.

James1 says:

04:43pm | 08/11/12

That is the opinion of one person, who is deeply biased who has, as a result of his bias, ignored most of the historical evidence available, and then cherry picked the evidence he does use to support his argument.  Like most theists, Lord Bragg has started with a conclusion and sought out the evidence he needs to support that conclusion, rather than examining the evidence and then drawing a conclusion based on what he observes.  In that sense, he shares your lack of understanding of the nature and uses of evidence.

I would not dispute the importance of Christianity in the development of modern Western civilisation, but then neither would I dispute the role of moving away from Christianity and towards a truly secular approach to governance in the formation of modern Western civilisation. 

Like I said, Zac, if you want to participate in a discussion with me on an equal basis, you would have to do better than a few cut and pastes from Google searches to convince me of anything.  I would recommend that you start with some work done by historians, based on contemporary primary sources.

This historical record is replete with hundreds of examples of theocratic states forcing the trappings of belief onto citizens - even someone as immune to reality as you cannot deny this, surely?  Take, for instance, my Irish Catholic ancestors, who for centuries had their religion ruthlessly suppressed by the English tyrants in favour of their particular brand of Christianity - this only ended due to the enlightenment belief that the state had no right to force the state religion on citizens, and that happened despite the power structures of the English church, not because of it. That is why secularism is about the rejection of the ability of the state to forcibly define the religion of its citizens, unless you can understand this fundamental tenet, you cannot understand secularism.

Otherwise, the stuff you say about atheism and democracy being incompatible and the other stuff about modern secularism being atheism is quite disturbing, and sounds like an incoherent paranoid fantasy, so I can’t really respond to that.

On enlightenment having Christian origins, I would take a different approach, and say that just because it happened in societies that were highly theocratic at the time, doesn’t mean it happened because these societies were theocratic.

Ben Taylor says:

06:22pm | 08/11/12

@Tootsie “Next they’ll want to abolish Mothers day and Fathers day so same sex couples aren’t discriminated against.”

Yes, because providing a freedom is exactly the same as removing a freedom. Get a grip. This comment proves to me that some people believe that opening the doors on marriage to gay individuals will somehow detract from their own marriage.

Ryan says:

11:54am | 08/11/12

Well, the marriage used to be paid for with a goat and two pigs yet we’ve redefined it since then, too in most places.

Kieran says:

12:04pm | 08/11/12

“You guys have your own Water Fountain, why would you wish to antagonize people by using this one?”

Ange says:

12:06pm | 08/11/12

Ummm….Your definition of marriage is not neccessarily the definition held by most Australians these days. I’m happily married and it wasn’t before God. It was before a civil celebrant. Why can’t a gay couple be married by a civil celebrant in the same way many heterosexual couples are?

Nat says:

12:09pm | 08/11/12

If marriage is a union between a man and a woman before god, then why do heterosexual non-Christian couples have the right to get ‘married’
Additionally. Why then does marriage extend to include those who marry for money, property and idiotic reasons like the 72 hour kardash marriage.
As someone who has grown up Christian, I think god would prefer two people who love each other regardless of their race or sexuality to get married in his church.
Either way. Politics is about human rights not religion.
And Australians hold deeper the concept of giving each other a ‘fair go’ rather than ‘marriage’

Bella says:

12:17pm | 08/11/12

The original idea of marriage is completely and utterly lost to what it was to begin with. It Was a way to bring the family into money, woman were forced by there parents to marry old perverted men 3 times their age, the girls had no say, and divorce was unheard of. Then they brought religion into it with the choice of who you married but you were still locked in under the name of religion. Now Half the population doesnt believe in God or religion so why dont you say that only People with religious beliefs can marry. Woman who have been married 5 times still wear white dresses. Needless to say theyre not “pure” anymore.

Since homeosexuals struggle and fight for what we are entitled to we are more likely to appreciate marriage more than the hetero family next door. Our love is more genuine because of the hardships we endure.

Laura says:

12:36pm | 08/11/12

“The word marriage has the deeply held meaning for most Australians and that is marriage is the union of a woman and a man before God.”

If this were true, then gay marriage wouldn’t be completely accepted by 60% of the population now, would it?

Loxy says:

12:50pm | 08/11/12

Allan, marriage is already evolving from your definition given the fact that over 60% of marriages in this country are conducted by a celebrant - in other words not conducted before god of having anything to do wth god. If more than half of us married folk have dropped the whole link to god in marriage, why does the other part of the definition have to remain??

The reason gay people want to get married is simply, because equality means having the same rights. Not having a watered down version of a right or a similiar/same right but called something different, it’s having the EXACT same right!

As a married hetrosexual women, I full support the rights of gays to have the same rights as me. Why do you wish to antagonise peole by insisting ownership of a word?

Zoe says:

12:50pm | 08/11/12

Allan,
Laws in society form the backbone of our ideologies. In Australia, physically abusing someone is wrong- it is against the law. Previously though in our beloved Australia, Aboriginals were denied the rights of White people (through laws that excluded them); and therefore physical abuse of an Aboriginal was not considered ‘wrong’ in the eyes of the law.

I draw many conclusions between this point in out history and the present. The law needs to be changed and hence changing of the word marriage, in order for the ideologies and beliefs of our modern society to change.

I am almost positive that if marriage were legal between a homosexual couple when Matt was attending school, he wouldn’t have endured nearly as much of the horrid torment that homosexual people have to endure to this day.

A civil union belittles the idea of homosexual relationships and therefore society NEEDS to acknowledge that a same sex relationship is EQUAL to a heterosexual one. That is why the word ‘marriage’ is in need of a new definition.

Dman says:

12:54pm | 08/11/12

Allan, I think you’ll find that more Australians define marriage as two loving people making a lifelong commitment to each other. God doesn’t even come into it for many, if not most, people. I’m a heterosexual male and I know that when I get married I certainly won’t be feeling “antagonised” if homosexual couples also have the same right. If anything, I’d feel better knowing that homosexuals also have the ability to marry those they love.

MS says:

01:07pm | 08/11/12

Bella, Don’t belittle the struggles of other people because you feel persecuted. You have no clue as to what other people would appreciate or not.
The biggest issue there is with the arguments is that both sides resort to name calling and the whole, “It’s harder for me, so I will be better at it/appreciate it more”
We all have our struggles, and our battles to fight, focus on selling the positives for what you are trying to achieve rather than denigrating others, and you would probably get more support.

Allan says:

02:11pm | 08/11/12

Words and their meanings are important.
Many of the comments use the term heterosexual to differentiate themselves from homosexuals.
It must be important to differentiate even though most would accept that both are equal.
Surely the term Marriage is used the designate a particular type of union between couples even though all the unions should be equal.
Other words should be used to describe other unions.
Even though I am one of the 22.7% of people in Australia who put down that they had no faith (ie Atheist) in the last census I still respect those that hold a faith in a God and their beliefs in that God.
I suggest that the polling that has been quoted indicates that most Australians are more than happy to see that all couples are treated equally under the law .
But if it came to a referendum the term Marriage would remain as a Union of a woman and a man before God.
Hence the reason those with the best political nose are reluctant to change the ACT.
At the moment it appears that the majority

gb says:

12:42pm | 08/11/12

“I think” and “it’s been shown several times” is exactly the kind of childish arguing that proves logic will never get through to some of you! We ALL think! And if it’s been shown, then give an example. At the least the writer of this article actually gave sources.
I bet you’re religious, because if I could pick the worst effect religion has on people, I would say it’s the mindset to just accept something is so, without needing proof. You all argue this way too!
Y’know, if you’re going to have such a forcefully strong opinion on something that will affect the lives of others and in no way affect yours, then know your facts!

Sim says:

03:02pm | 08/11/12

@gb ‘bet you’re religious, because if I could pick the worst effect religion has on people, I would say it’s the mindset to just accept something is so, without needing proof’

It’s called faith.

You build up an OK argument but then all your points become invaild when you prove yourself to be completely naive.

We are talking about a topic where the underlying issue is equality (which you seem to support) and then you throw an entire group of people under the bus.

Markus says:

12:10pm | 08/11/12

“I think at least 64% of the country care about this topic”
That 64% answered yes to the question ‘Do you think same-sex marriage in Australia is inevitable?’, which doesn’t actually give any measurement of how much they care.

For all we know, 100% of that 64% fall into the aforementioned 98% who don’t give a toss.

Another Chris says:

12:29pm | 08/11/12

I know 0% of the 64% that were apparently surveyed…. So i’m guessing that’s everyone. Forever alone.

JB says:

12:38pm | 08/11/12

@James, your right the PM should start looking at what is best for the people of our nation and that is not gay marriage without putting it to a referendum! You “think at least 64% of the country care about this topic in support” oh please James stop pulling these figures out your bum.
The only way it will be accepted is if the people get to decide and then the matter can be put to rest, but it won’t be because you will be back in another 4-5 years trying the exact same thing until you like s petchulant child to get their own way.

SydneyGirl says:

12:44pm | 08/11/12

I don’t see how the numbers matter.

Even if practised by 2% of the population, you are still free to follow your own religion and don’t have to wait for the remaining 98% to endorse it or give a toss about whether they give a toss.

Joel M-J says:

01:20pm | 08/11/12

Sure you did champ.

J says:

01:26pm | 08/11/12

Well done Justin!  I am so glad that you are raising your son with true morals - those based on treating others with kindness, respect and empathy rather than the false morality I see used so frequently by people as a weapon to hurt and punish others.  You are a genuine Christian, there are very few of you so you should be proud.

Alex says:

01:31pm | 08/11/12

Hi Justin, I am a married lesbian who is nearly 40. I got married in Canada and my marriage certificate is worth nothing in this country. But it means the world to me and I consider myself to be married. I don’t have any children. I would describe my political allegiance as far left and would probably describe myself as an atheist (or reformed catholic). So as you would see we are quite different in our world view and would possibly not have too much in common. Your comments have made me stop and actually think for a moment. I really want to thank you for your obvious attempts to make sure your son grows up embracing diversity. I was somewhat sceptical (which I wholeheartedly own) regarding your comments and found myself looking for reasons not to like your comments purely based on your political and religious allegiances and my understanding of what this usually means in relation to same sex marriage. I was looking for the subtleties, the “love the sinner but not the sin”. But I couldn’t find it. I thank you for your honesty and thank you so very much for recognising that gay people deserve the same joy and happiness you have with your wife. And I again thank you for what your son Dexter will bring with him (via you) in the years to come to people like me growing up around him. I now see that the Dexter’s of this world, and the Justin’s much more importantly, are what will bring change to those of us that have grown up feeling like we’re just not good enough, don’t quite fit and don’t really belong. You are exactly who we need to support us. From the bottom of my heart I sincerely thank you. Cheers, Alex

Nilbog says:

02:01pm | 08/11/12

Give yourself an uppercut for naming your son Dexter…

A don says:

12:28pm | 08/11/12

Actually we probably are the 51st State. The term in the USA can be used to refer to countries politically aligned to USA causes and there is no doubt we are inextricably linked to the USA since the War of Independence which led to the colony being formed.

your a racist says:

12:17pm | 08/11/12

calling someone coffee is racist

Tolomy says:

12:25pm | 08/11/12

If you want to guage the support for “Gay marriage” then have the government condust a refferendum at the next federal election.
Many people have strong vies on the subject, more support and others reject. Who is right depends on your own personal view. I do not support gay marriage due to my beliefs that marriage is between a man and a women, weather you agree or not that is my view and i am fully entitled to it and should not be attacked for having my beliefs.
Who is forcing religious beliefs on people? Oh you mean Tony Abbott? A man who is standing up for his personal beliefs and acting on them yet Penny Wong and Louise Pratt are doing the EXACT same thing and that is ok for them to do?
@YaThink FYI, Australia was founded and is based on Christian laws that we have made our own so religion is part of who Australia was and is. If you think that Christians don’t support gay’s then what the hell to you think Muslims will do if they even become the dominant religion in Australia which they are trying to do? Food for thought!

Tolomy says:

12:41pm | 08/11/12

@your a racist, please tell me how me calling a black person black is racist but if they call me white that’s ok?
Calling someone “coffee” you are arguing semantics.

AliceC says:

12:25pm | 08/11/12

Agreed. As a heterosexual woman, I 100% support gay marriage.

Happy G says:

12:35pm | 08/11/12

If it’s not Gay marriage it’s womenz issues. Fair dinkum these guys should get a new play book. Personally I’m all for Gay marriage - why should we be the only ones that are miserable. I have a dream. I dream that one day I will log on to the Punch and there won’t be a whole lot of whiny, bitching articles by perceived, put upon minority groups.

Kai says:

01:09pm | 08/11/12

Have to totally agreewith Happy G.
Look forward to that happy day…

Kai says:

01:09pm | 08/11/12

Have to totally agreewith Happy G.
Look forward to that happy day…

Loz says:

01:00pm | 08/11/12

I hope for you Pete, and all the others in your situation, that this country moves forward from its 17th Century ideals and allows you to marry your partner.

Prime Minister Gillard, like the rest of the heterosexual population, has a choice. She chooses not to marry. How, in 2012, can we still stand here and say that you cannot have that choice? How does the person you love determine wether you have that choice or not? I cannot understand it. Love is love.

The foundations of the Australian Constitution may have been built from a Christian belief system, but that in no way reflects how Australia views itself today. We are no longer scared of our own shadows. Let’s step out into the light.

CT says:

01:43pm | 08/11/12

@Pete - “the arguments against are made in the name of religion and what is considered only a religious institution.  Marriage is not a religious institution but a social and legal construct. Its time that was understood.”

Pete you said it yourself here, but I’m thinking you didn’t truly understand it. Marriage is not a religious institution but a social and legal construct. As such, the LAW (not me, or the majority of Australians) recognises marriage (under the marriage act) as “between a man and a woman” that is the LITERAL LEGAL terminology applied to “MARRIAGE”.  THIS is the SOLE legal reason it can not be called “Marriage”, what you do have already is LEGAL CIVIL UNION which is EXACTLY the same legal rights, but with a different title because MARRIAGE registration can not be met as the criteria of one male, one female are not being met.  Once the Gay community understands its the same bloody thing with a different title perhaps we can all sit down and have a brewski together and celebrate the fact that you do have equal rights you just have a different title. 

Why dont you get all upset that people are still seen (by the law) as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islands descent?  I mean, we are all human right?  But the law (for some reason) needs to segregate its just the laws way of putting limits on one particular act.  Its not rocket science….

Angry_Of_Mayfair says:

04:56pm | 08/11/12

*sigh* Once again - The only reason that the CURRENT definition of marriage is between a “man and a woman” is because our former Lord and Master, Mr. Bonsai Howard, made it that way in order to appeal to the horrendously interfering god-annoyers of Hillsong & the ACL. Prior to that it was NON-GENDER SPECIFIC.

Greg says:

01:14pm | 08/11/12

I would be happy with accepting a decision made by referendum.

But it won’t happen, because most people don’t accept gay marriage, so the referendum would lose.

I suspect that all these polls promoted by the gay lobby and the media were done using samples of people who participate in the Sydney mardi gras.

Louise says:

01:37pm | 08/11/12

Agree.  All this arguing is pointless.

Put it to the real vote - a comprehensive, national vote.  That’s democracy.  Whatever the outcome, we would all have to respect it.

AliceC says:

03:07pm | 08/11/12

Referendums are for changes in constitution, not law. Plus they cost an absolute fortune. Change the Act, save money and get it done with.

Loxy says:

12:39pm | 08/11/12

“10 States in the USA have legislated for same-sex marriage…out of 50. I’m not sure why this is seen to be compelling evidence when it is only 20% of the nation”.

Critic, this is compelling because overall America is a much more religious and conservative country than we are, meaning we should be leading the way in such policies. While it may only be 20% of American States – it’s far better than what we have!

Daniel says:

01:04pm | 08/11/12

Exact same thing, but with a different name. Why bother? The logic here blows me away.

Joel M-J says:

01:28pm | 08/11/12

“It not a marriage never will be.”

Why? Because you say it isn’t?

Marriage can be whatever we want it to be. That is a point of view that should not be condescendingly undermined by anyone, not even you… whoever you are.

Markus says:

03:52pm | 08/11/12

“Marriage can be whatever we want it to be.”
And by a vote of 98-42, it was decided what we wanted it to be.
That is a vote result that should not be condescendingly undermined by anyone, not even you.

Tolomy says:

12:48pm | 08/11/12

@The Guru, Ido truly find you highly offensive!
Why is it that because someone believes in religion and let it guide their life you call them “religious nutters”.
What is when i heard a gay person speak i called them “Queer patrol” or something equally derogatory?
Because you don’t care doesn’t mean that others don’t and you are seeking to force your lack of a view on other that actually do have a view and are willing to stand up for that belief!
“14th century” please tell me the churches position in the “14th century” seeing as you are all knowing?

John L says:

01:25pm | 08/11/12

It is because no-one cares that nothing gets done. If people want this sort of thing to be passed then they have to push everyone into action. I’d like to change slightly what Anubis said, instead of 98% of people not caring, it might be closer to say that 98% of people don’t care ENOUGH.

You have to remember that the favourite part of a politician’s job is the bit where they get to do nothing whatsoever. If we all got up and were more active in our roles as citizens, then maybe things in this country would be different.

Joel M-J says:

01:32pm | 08/11/12

@Tolomy

Anyone who holds true to the beliefs of 2000 year old Jewish priests, Roman Tax Collectors, and blind illiterate hermits, all of whom also believed the world was flat, deserves to be called a nutter.

Louise says:

02:44pm | 08/11/12

“Anyone who holds true to the beliefs of 2000 year old Jewish priests, Roman Tax Collectors, and blind illiterate hermits, all of whom also believed the world was flat, deserves to be called a nutter.”

Now we see who the real bigot is, Joel M-J.

Tomoly says:

03:26pm | 08/11/12

@Joel M-J, So you want acceptance and understanding and yet you yourself as so disrespectful to others, Can you spell hypocrite!
Just because you see no proof doesn’t mean that it isn’t true. Do you believe that we are the only intelligent race in the universe?
Using your argument there is no proof, but you would be a fool to believe otherwise.
@Louise, Spot on.

Joel M-J says:

03:33pm | 08/11/12

Not really Louise, I’m just pointing out the madness of trying to live life according to 2000 year old values… and more to the point, trying to rule other peoples lives on that same basis. Some values transcend time, it’s true, but a great deal more do not.

I recommend you refer back to a post I have just made in our previous discussion.

Tolomy says:

04:24pm | 08/11/12

@Joel M-J, So what “2000 year old values” are no longer appropriate?
Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not commit adulatory for a few examples.
What values do not transcend time? I mean values held be society and in the law not your personal view?
You are clearly an atheist and it could then be said that you believe in nothing, just like our PM.

Joel M-J says:

05:03pm | 08/11/12

Well for a start, you don’t need to be Christian to know that murder, stealing and adultery are wrong. In fact, these were virtues long held before Christianity.

But lets focus on some that are well and truly not relevant anymore (from the bible).

I am in deed an Atheist. What that means, is that I don’t believe in God or any of the theisms. I do believe in good will. I believe in the righteousness of universal equality. I believe that there is PROBABLY alien life out there in the galaxy. I believe there PROBABLY is no god. And I absolutely believe that Gay people should not be discriminated on, especially not for reasons dictated to us by your probably imaginary friend.

It’s true. I can’t disprove he exists. I can’t disprove there isn’t a tea pot orbiting Mars either. That said, it’s ridiculously unlikely.

How about Deuteronomy 22:23-24? “If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city.”

Or Leviticus 25:45?  “Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy … and they shall be your possession… they shall be your bondmen forever.”

Hmmm… So the Old Testament endorses the killing of fornicators and the slave trade, among other things. Perhaps the New Testament will be nicer.

Timothy 2:11-14 “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”

Matthew 5:28 “Don’t have sexual urges.”

1 Corinthians 14:33-35 “As in all the churches of the holy ones, women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. But if they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church.”

Well then, who’d guess the new testament was anti equal rights for women?

I’d say that’s pretty outdated, wouldn’t you? Or do you agree with those above quotes? Perhaps you belong in biblical times.

As you can see, just cos the bible says it, doesn’t mean it should hold true in what is supposed to be a secular society.

Ange says:

01:44pm | 08/11/12

The most sensible approach I’ve read in the whole bunch!

Louise says:

02:12pm | 08/11/12

None of us live our lives in a vacuum.  The way we live our lives does have the potential to affect other people - like ripples from a stone thrown into a pond.

It’s naive, shortsighted and simplistic to think that social change - however fundamentally personal - can’t have wider effects, however subtle / creeping etc.  The ripple effect.  It’s never as simple as “It’s my right; I deserve exactly the same as you - or him or her” without thinking about all the possible consequences of change.

J.t says:

03:07pm | 08/11/12

@ Louise…

Of course our actions have consequences, but this is the problem with conservatism and that vacum. Much of that change to which you refer is known as human progress, something the church, the state and conservatives have tried to step in the way off constantly.

I am all for society progressing in anyway it pleases, you personally might think this progression is actually regression and if you step back and take a macro view than maybe it is, all societies regress in one way or another from time to time, just ask a social anthropologist or historian.

However conservatism & progressivism tries to harness this societal change and mould it into what they feel a society should look like, be it with gay marriage laws, or oppressive taxation and wealth distribution.

Libertarianism has a very narrow view on the role of government and no view on religeon as its not a correct role for government to have anything to do with religeon.

My point is, you can’t steer society without creating winners and losers, you are in fact picking them by the creation of policy. Your common good is actually discrimination in disguise.

The only way to have equitable treatment under law is to get government out of marriage.

If you believe in a free and open society you cannot pick winners and you cannot pick losers. You have to believe the only true role for government is to ensure individuals can live their best lives out in a manner that they wish, as long as it does not affect anothers liberties and yes even if you dissaprove.

Sorry, your vacum arguement holds no merit with me and your attempts to control society through the “common good” is failed reasoning and frankly a little bit USSR circa Stalin.

Tolomy says:

04:42pm | 08/11/12

@J.t, Seriously mate, I i understand your comment correctly, If the Gay community can’t have marriage then we should tear down the whole institution and call it something else?
I believe your argument is flawed “someone else’s relationship does not affect another citizens individual freedom in any way”. Gay people have relationships do not affect other people so why are they seeking to marry. As you put it their “relationship” doesn’t affect anyone but when they want to Marry which will affect the way “marriage” is perceived by many who have strong views will and is causing discord among many people. “There is just no good logical reason to put restraints on something that does not affect anybody other than the two individuals concerned.” Well clearly this does affect people who are against it but you seem to be dismissing and brushing their objections aside because you do not agree with them.
Apart from that the government to a limited extent is intertwined with religion. most western countries have their laws based on religious laws, tenentes and teachings. so your comment of “Libertarianism has a very narrow view on the role of government and no view on religeon as its not a correct role for government to have anything to do with religion” is not correct.
I do find it offensive that people to want to change the laws just because they don’t like the old ones. If there is to be change then take it to a referendum and let ALL the people have a say.

Louise says:

05:28pm | 08/11/12

J.T.

“I am all for society progressing in anyway it pleases.”

I’m not - I care about how society progresses. I’m not a fan of anarchy or change for change’s sake.  And I don’t believe that caring about the “common good” means wanting to “control” society.  Try a bit of grey in between your black white.

In any system of government there will always be winners and losers - look at all the fierce partisan debate going on here and in the U.S.  So, yes, there will always be ‘discrimination’, as you put it, in some form, to some degree. Discrimination is another word for choice - people and governments make them every day.

I understand what you say about governments staying out of personal relationships - but that doesn’t preclude allowing groups to ‘discriminate’, based on their beliefs, between situations in which people might use the word ‘marriage’ - as opposed to e.g. civil union.

Although - tell you what - after the bashing from the likes of John, Joel M-J, and you I’m going off the whole idea.  Lefties the tolerant ones, my arse.

J.t says:

06:00pm | 08/11/12

@Tolomly,
“If the Gay community can’t have marriage then we should tear down the whole institution and call it something else?”
Nope that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying It’s not a correct role of government to licence relationships, it’s a marriage licence…Government should have been in the business in the first place.
“Gay people have relationships do not affect other people so why are they seeking to marry. “
I am not advocating that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. I am arguing for the correct application of the role of government, if licencing relationships is a part of this role then I am arguing for the principals of freedom and non-aggression to be applied. Obviously these are the most important roles for government and if marriage is extended to all then so be it.
“As you put it their “relationship” doesn’t affect anyone but when they want to Marry which will affect the way “marriage” is perceived by many who have strong views will and is causing discord among many people. “
Well it’s not “as I put it”, it’s a fact, and disapproval of another’s behaviour that doesn’t affect your personal freedom isn’t a reason to outlaw it. I personal disapprove of drug use, but I don’t believe that should stop others from enjoying it, as long as their behaviour does not affect my personal liberty or property. Being offended isn’t any argument for anything.
“Well clearly this does affect people who are against it but you seem to be dismissing and brushing their objections aside because you do not agree with them.”
It doesn’t affect their personal liberty merely their senses, like offensive music, you can turn it off or turn away. Again being offended isn’t a reason for anything and it’s certainly not a reason for government to intervene. Your logic and understanding of liberty and its principals that underpin our country seems to be limited.
“Apart from that the government to a limited extent is intertwined with religion. “
No its not, examples please? I looked in the constitution and I couldn’t see anything?
“most western countries have their laws based on religious laws, tenants and teachings.”
Of course in a historical context you are correct, religion has had a profound impact on natural laws and rights (see Thomas Aquinas and others) however what that has to do with correctly applying the role of government in a modern free society I have no idea…no one is questioning the role religion has had in shaping the liberalism & freedom debate. 
“so your comment of “Libertarianism has a very narrow view on the role of government and no view on religion as its not a correct role for government to have anything to do with religion is not correct.”
Libertarianism is the group of political philosophies that advocates minimizing coercion and emphasizes freedom, liberty, and voluntary association, so yes I am correct. Where in the Libertarian doctrine does it mention anything about religion other than that people are free to pursue it as long as it does not affect another’s person’s individual liberty??
“I do find it offensive that people to want to change the laws just because they don’t like the old ones. “
John Howard only Federalised Marriage Laws in 2006…let’s not act like that’s a long time ago or that Howard didn’t make a massive conservative blunder. Instead of keeping marriage a state issue and forcing the gay lobby to go each individual state legislature and fight this battle many times over, he made it a Federal Issue and much easier for the gay lobby to simply do business in Canberra.
Conservative thinking can be so stupid.

Bentley says:

12:48pm | 08/11/12

Just something you guys don’t get. The more noise you make the more annoyed people are with you. Where is the living what you preach. Would you like it if people who do-not agree with your viewpoint petitioned and made phone calls, sent letters got in the face of politicians to ship all gay people off to the countries that have changed the Marriage definition to include them.

James1 says:

01:55pm | 08/11/12

As PJ says above, so long as churches aren’t forced to perform ceremonies, I can’t see any issue with the idea.

I’d be interested in hearing your reasoning as to why it is a bad idea on balance though, Adam, especially in light of your personal circumstances.

AdamC says:

02:52pm | 08/11/12

Well, James1, I suppose it goes back to that old adage about marriage being a union between a man and a woman.

The idea that the conception of marriage should be expanded to accommodate the wishes of well-connected minorities (even ones of which I am a member) is unconvincing. One one level, I suppose it is a case of, if you start allowing more people to get married, you debase the institution. Much like printing more banknotes devalues the currency.

You can actually see that principle at work when gay activists, while claiming an inalienable right to gay marriage, are quite happy to deny the same right to less trendy minority groups, like polygamists.

James1 says:

03:43pm | 08/11/12

Yeah, personally I don’t buy the argument that gay marriage is okay but polyamorous marriage isn’t.  It is highly inconsistent of them to oppose one yet support the other, and the argument has no logical basis.

Mattb says:

03:53pm | 08/11/12

Quite often I find your posts are well thought out and reasoned Adam. Quite often don’t agree with them, but hey, cant please everyone.

But for the life of me I cannot understand how it is you can take the stance you do on this issue. When you first made your sexuality clear to all of us on the punch and at the same time stated that your against Gay marriage I was dumbfounded. Why would you want to deny the option of marriage to you, your partner and your gay brothers and sisters living around Australia?. It just seems absolutely ludicrous?. How can you not want to afford yourself the same rights as the rest of the populace?, even if in the end you never take up the marriage opportunity.

From the post you’ve written here today, its obvious that your mind is starting to change on the issue and that you and your partner are talking about the possibility. All I can say is that I got married in my late 30’s at the start of this year after staunchly saying all through my teens, 20’s and early 30’s that I NEVER would. It was a really great day and would recomend it to anyone. Don’t write it off as a waste of money or a symbolic sham as it really is a pretty special day (not that you are here or have said that in the past, just saying that incase thats why you’ve been against it in the past).

There’s no “bad idea on balance” about it. The marriage of you and your partner would not affect anyone but YOU and your PARTNER. Anyone that wasn’t happy for you isn’t someone you want around you anyway and any hetrosexual marriage would not somehow be mysteriously invalidated because two gay people decide to show their love for one another, so what’s so bad about it?..

Louise says:

05:33pm | 08/11/12

AdamC,

After our - ahem - difference of opinion on the live export issue, I’ve just got to say, I have the utmost respect for your position on this issue. Seriously impressive intellectual integrity.

Loxy says:

12:40pm | 08/11/12

Sqwak, what the ‘real issues’ are will differ from person to person and unfortunately this is not something you can dictate. I’m not gay and am happily married; however I consider marriage equality to be one of the big issue for me and I am far from alone in my circle of acquaintances.

Al B says:

01:19pm | 08/11/12

Good thing with the one bloke, two+ ladies is the surplus of lads it creates. Hetero polygamy and homo utopia…hand in hand we go…mormons and queer folks…u know it makes sense!

J says:

01:37pm | 08/11/12

100% agreed.  It’s all about “consenting adults” and whether or not your are hurting anyone else.  Gay marriage or non-monogamous marriage fulfill both criteria.

TassieMormon says:

02:18pm | 08/11/12

Al B:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has not practised polygamy for over 120 years.
http://www.lds.org/topics/polygamy-plural-marriage

Al B says:

03:36pm | 08/11/12

For shame, tassiemormon, for shame…has its merits i think, aside from my own self interest lol. In reality in the west with the high divorce rate, we have quite a bit of ‘polygamy’ except the partners desert each other. Its a taboo that really shouldn’t be…people should be free to pursue it.

Laura says:

01:03pm | 08/11/12

“stand against this minority who wish to impose their morals on the rest of us”

Robin, it’s been shown several times that YOU are in the minority.  It’s also YOU that is forcing your beliefs onto others.  Religion does not own marriage. 

If homosexual couples were forcing their beliefs onto you, they’d be rallying for everybody to get same sex marriages, but they aren’t. They just want equality & for people to respect their personal freedom & let them get their own.  You’re free to keep your beliefs, just don’t try to restrict people’s freedoms.

How exactly would same sex marriage impose on you in any way whatsoever?

Non religious heterosexuals can get married, outside the house of God, by a civil celebrant, not a priest.. does that impose on your morals too? How about people of other religious denominations, should they be allowed to marry?

If your God is upset by these same sex marriages, I’m sure that he’ll make sure that all the gays are punished for an eternity in hell anyway , what does their lives have to do with you?

Shouldn’t you trust God to punish the wicked & worry about your own salvation?

Robin says:

05:03pm | 08/11/12

Thanks Laura, you are right in what you say.

Everyone does have the freedom of choice. No one should judge another for that is for God to do. It is up to each individual to make that decision; “Do I believe in what Christians say, that God in Jesus Christ will judge the world according to His (Gods) standards?  or run the chance and possibly be judged accordingly. I don’t believe I am forcing my beliefs nor the standards I try to live by onto others, I am simply trying to alert people (in much the same way as those for same sex marriage and their cause)  that there is a God who loves them, and if they choose Him things will work out fine.

Yes I am living in my Salvation and just hope others too may find it. This certainly is an argument that will not be won until the end of time regardless of how I or anyone else may feel about it.

Angry_Of_Mayfair says:

06:43pm | 08/11/12

Erm….Robin, sweetie, this might be a bad time to tell that Christianity isn’t the largest religion on poor, old, planet Earth. YOU are a minority. I pray that the rest of human-kind will stand against bigoted minorities who, like yourself, wish to impose their morals on the rest of us. Practice what you preach.

Tolomy says:

12:54pm | 08/11/12

You think so do you.
I have seen a few fights between gay couples and there JUST as bad as hetro fights!
“men are such slaves in women’s hands” seriously that is quite an insulting statement against men and women!

JB says:

12:51pm | 08/11/12

Good luck with that Bill, but don’t you think that’s a bit rich using the media that you purportedly despise?

Laura says:

01:34pm | 08/11/12

“The locals in Australia are not”

Every poll that’s been conducted proves otherwise.

“My Marriage will be changed becuase of your selfish wants.”

“your” marriage won’t change at all, the definition of marriage will change, it won’t affect you at all.

If you think that gays are being selfish for wanting to marry the one they love, but you not wanting to say “i’m married to a woman” is reason enough to restrict someone’s personal freedoms, then I suggest you seriously consider how you’d feel if the shoe was on the other foot.

” Forcing Joe public to accept something that they feel is not morally acceptable is not a happy society i want to live in.” - People said the same thing in the ‘60s when segregation ended. Just saying….

Joel M-J says:

01:36pm | 08/11/12

I’m a local. I wouldn’t mind changing.

Don’t presume to speak for a majority of Australians that doesn’t even exist.

You absolutely will not have to clarify who you are married to. You may feel you need to due to sexual insecurity, but it will not be a requirement. The love you have for your partner, and the commitment you have to them, will also not be undermined by this.

It beggars the belief that so many ‘adults’ out there argue with logic of 10 year olds. Although that’s not entirely fair to 10 year olds. Most these days tend to have an excuse for not knowing any better.

Alex says:

01:47pm | 08/11/12

Wow Bentley so glad that you have surveyed the “locals” in Australia and now feel that you are able to speak on their behalf. Who exactly are the “locals” here? If you are talking about our indigenous Australians I think you might find (oh if you care to talk to them, but given your bigoted views of the gay members of our society, I’ll hazard a guess you’re just as racist as you are homophobic) that same sex relationships are widely accepted and been in existance before your relatives arrival in this fair land. Hmm maybe “locals” mean your mate Bob from the pub - he don’t like those faggots either do he Bentley? Wow you astound me. Why don’t you try moving to an island where you can take your “locals” crew. Don’t worry won’t have to be a big island because I think you will find you are the minority that are wanting to push and push to force people to not accept all members of our community as equal and valuable. Pretty sure your need to “proclaim” you are married to a woman if the definition changes speaks volumes of your insecurities. Don’t wanna be mistaken for one of them poofs eh Bentley.

Joel M-J says:

02:34pm | 08/11/12

Hi Nicholas,

Also want to point out in your second last paragraph, Nazi Germany was Christian. Not Atheist.

Extreme right says:

04:03pm | 08/11/12

@Joel M-J

IS your brain working?? Judging from this comment I do not think so.

Joel M-J says:

04:24pm | 08/11/12

Wow. You extreme right Christians really can’t come to terms with the fact that Nazi Germany was Christian, can you?

It’s pathetic.

Strangely enough, my brain is working. I make rational decisions based on thinking things out, and freedom of thought.

Is your brain working? Or do you let your church do that for you?

Angry_Of_Mayfair says:

04:42pm | 08/11/12

I hate to tell you this, but L’il Johnny & Grumpy Ruddock changed the definition a few years ago. Going by that precedent, it’s a bit late to “leave it the way it is”.

Daniel says:

01:06pm | 08/11/12

“No laws are stopping gap people from loving and being loved so what are you fighting for? ”

The benefits and rights afforded to ‘married’ couples that currently are not reflected in any ‘gay union’ afforded in Australia.

Tyr says:

03:01pm | 08/11/12

Because obviously society’s perceptions haven’t changed, you goober.

Bentley says:

01:14pm | 08/11/12

Um, The rights of the minority being decided by the majority hapens all the time, every day. Every minority lives by the rules set out by the majority.

LC says:

01:13pm | 08/11/12

They’re really coming out the woodwork aren’t they? When I wrote my comment below (that’s yet to be published) there was 27 comments, mostly from the regulars in favor of it. After I hit “submit”, there’s 96 comments, many from a stack of new names openly opposed to it.

The hard-line Christians are out here in force today to crush the gay marriage supports under their holy jackboots!

AussieDude1276 says:

02:37pm | 08/11/12

Should they legalise polygamy (of any variety)  “and get on with it” at the same time?

Ella says:

01:26pm | 08/11/12

Thank you so much.

Tony H says:

01:32pm | 08/11/12

“More than 10% of Australians are openly homosexual”

Can you point to a reliable source on that? By “reliable” I mean something that is not the Green Left Weekly or a student union newsletter. Thanks.

Michael says:

01:35pm | 08/11/12

Here! Here! Well said Rebecca!!!!

To everyone else:

If YOU were gay… would you have a different opinion?
If YOU had a gay son… would you have a different opinion?

And btw.. comparing gay marriage to polygamy and beastiality is just plan stupid.

Michael says:

01:35pm | 08/11/12

Here! Here! Well said Rebecca!!!!

To everyone else:

If YOU were gay… would you have a different opinion?
If YOU had a gay son… would you have a different opinion?

And btw.. comparing gay marriage to polygamy and beastiality is just plane stupid.

Raymond says:

02:01pm | 08/11/12

Rebecca, the % figures you quote are wrong, so immediately the credibility of you whole argument is in doubt.
It may come as a surprise to you that contrary to popular belief, homosexuals are NOT discriminated against in Australia.  They are free to marry - just like anyone else. 
However to participate in marriage, they also must qualify.  For example, both must be “of age”, not close relatives, not already married, of opposite sex, etc. 
The noisy and over-represented homosexual community now wish to change these time-honoured qualifications in order to suite their own un-natural lifestyle. 
While many easy-going Australians may tolerate homosexual behaviour, it does not mean they support it.  My experience is that it is generally seen as an un-natural, unhealthy and most inappropriate lifestyle.  Those who are caught up in that lifestyledo not need ridicule, but help from a treatable disorder. 
I have heard testimonies from many homosexuals who have come out of it to lead a normal life, but their stories never seem to get much media attention (for obvious reasons).

Peter says:

01:51pm | 08/11/12

Just curious, how are they being treated unfairly? Do you think it’s unfair that a Mormon can’t have 4 wives by law? Do you think it’s unfair that polygamy is illegal?.. Are you barracking for these things as well? In the name of equality?

Al says:

02:07pm | 08/11/12

Peter - re “Do you think it’s unfair that a Mormon can’t have 4 wives by law? Do you think it’s unfair that polygamy is illegal?”
Actualy yes I do, particularly as a case earlier this year actualy came to the conclusion that it is possible for a person to have multiple de facto partners at the same time for the purposes of inheritence law, and they don’t even have to be living with all of them.
So why recognise it for the purposes of one law and not another?

Jesse Matheson says:

02:23pm | 08/11/12

Peter, in short, yes. I do think that people should be able to express their love and have it recognised under the law (as long as there is consent from both parties.) I’m not sure if you are religious, but I’m sure many people against same-sex marriage would also champion religious freedoms and polygamy, for mormons, would be considered one of those freedoms being restricted due to the law.

The fact is that we as a society cannot preach equality and freedom to other nations unless we actually practice these concepts and values ourselves.

Equality was never meant for one person, one type of person or one institution, but for all. It’s time we applied that to the laws we create and be more open minded when making laws instead of creating them with only the majority in mind.

Peter says:

03:09pm | 08/11/12

So what are you doing to get equality for them? My religion is irrelevant. Society has tried to shift the word tolerance to mean ‘acceptance of everything a person does’... Let me state here, that i do not tolerate people like Hitler, i don’t accept his actions as good and just.
I really don’t think you’d like mormons to have multiple wives, (not sure on your gender) but what if you were seeing someone who was involved a relationship like this? You’d be cool right? In the name of equality? I doubt it. Seriously i doubt it.

Also, do you place ANY restrictions on marriage? Any at all?

Al says:

04:35pm | 08/11/12

Peter - would I CHOOSE to have multiple wives, no.
Would I CHOOSE to get married to another man, no.
Would I CHOOSE to be involved in a multiple partner relationship, no.
Do I think I should be able to choose what others can choose, no.
Re: “do you place ANY restrictions on marriage? Any at all?”
Yes, marrige must be entered into by free will, by legal adults with full consent.
(This removes those petty pedophillia, beastality and other pathetic arguments)

Kordez says:

02:51pm | 08/11/12

@Bob, do you realise how much it costs the Australian tax payer to fund an election or referendum? The vast majority of Australia would be completely disgusted that they foot the bill for a vote on same sex marriage. History tells us that referendums are often setup to fail anyway and asking an entire population to vote on something considered by most of our laws as discriminatory and arguably a human right would be a political suicide if the outcome was a definite “No!”

James1 says:

02:01pm | 08/11/12

Why bother?  Gay Australians live in Australia, a secular, capitalist democracy.  They don’t live in a communist, Muslim or atheist country.

Please note, Zac, that secularism and atheism are very different things.  Secularism is where churches are separate from the governing apparatus, and where the state does not determine the religion of its citizens.  You seem to be having some trouble understanding this.

Also, I wanted to pick you up on your error in thinking that atheism is not compatible with democracy.  That is only the case if the state is not secular, as it is only in that circumstance where the state gets to define the religion of its citizens.  So long as the state is secular, it takes no position on the religion of its citizens, and atheists can exist comfortably in a secular democracy as a result.

No need to thank me for clearing that up for you - I take immense pleasure in helping people learn about the society they live in.

Joel M-J says:

02:13pm | 08/11/12

Zac, the gross mistreatment of people around the world does not justify (even slightly) the mistreatment of people here, regardless of the severity.

P. Darvio says:

02:14pm | 08/11/12

Yes Folks and the Head of the Christian Church in Australia wants to join forces with Islam because in his own words.

““Even though Muslims don’t seem to believe in the separation of religion and state, church and state, I think we might have something to learn from them….”

AND

“…..in the very long run, it’s possible to see some sort of alliance…..”

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/the-future-holds-lasting-alliance-with-islam-pell/story-e6frg6nf-1226507858632

M’mmm – yes Christians and Christianity can learn from the likes of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan and those pinkie commos (did you know Christianity actually created Communism and the first Communists were Christians!!! – did you know that !!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism

and checkout the Facebook page of the Vatican – its only has 6,271 likes – where are all those Christians – all allegedly 2 billion of them – must be too busy to click the like button on the Vatican Facebook page.

Oh Dear…..

Joel M-J says:

02:40pm | 08/11/12

“Australia was once a fantastic place to live”

For you perhaps. For others, it was a nightmare.

Shane From Melbourne says:

05:34pm | 08/11/12

Any period where “Shaddap You Face” can reach No. 1 on the charts is clearly not nirvana…...

Katie says:

03:36pm | 08/11/12

That’s something I don’t understand either AmericanOzzie - why people keep saying that religious institutions will be ‘forced’ to marry gay couples. Don’t churches and their priests/ministers/whatever already have the right to say who they will or will not marry? My brother and his now-wife were knocked back by a few priests because my brother wasn’t christened (happens all the time, and no one calls discrimination there), and my sister and her now-husband had one priest refuse to marry them because he ‘didn’t feel they were ready and thought they were unsuited to be life partners’ for reasons never explained. (They’ve been happily married for 16 years now, so I guess whatever he was concerned about wasn’t really an issue!) I’ve never heard of any institution being forced to marry a couple before, and why would people think that someone would WANT to be married by someone who doesn’t want to and is hating every second of the ceremony?! It’s the weirdest argument I’ve heard against gay marriage so far!

Al says:

03:07pm | 08/11/12

David - only 3 BIG problems with your ‘proof’ (“Only man & woman can create a child thats proof….you can’t fight against natural law”)
1) It has already been done that a woman and a woman can create a child by using scientific techniques (implanting genetic material of one in to the ova of the other and creating an embryo).
2) There are many married people without children, therefore the ability to bear/create children is not relevant to the ability to marry.
3) There are many unmarried people with children, therefore the right to marry has no impact on the ability to have children.

CC says:

03:27pm | 08/11/12

@Al - not that I agree with what David has to say, but to your point #1 - They still used a sperm, from a male, there is no way to synthesise sperm, you need a male donor to produce it (at least for now)

@David - you have no understanding of natural law.  Natural Law does not say anything about gay/straight, what it allows is freedom of choice, freedom of expression, freedom of thought - mans law are not concurrent with natural law (in many cases, although some are).  Natural law says, as long as you arent impinging anyone else right (to those and other rights listed above) then you are free to behave how you please.  As soon as you breach the natural law rights of another then you are acting against natural law.  I suggest to you that the legal definition of marriage (and your world view) are against natural law.

Daniel says:

03:29pm | 08/11/12

It enshrines NOTHING about motherhood and fatherhood. Marriage has NOTHING to do with children. Children are optional. Children are not a requirement of marriage. The ability for gay couples to have children is exactly the same if they’re married or not.

You seem to be implying that the majority of same sex couples would not do a good job of raising children. Explain where ‘common sense’ dictates - this from the Barnaby Joyce school of common sense?

Blazes says:

04:03pm | 08/11/12

On what grounds do you say marriage has nothing to do with children?

Claude Levi-Strauss, the father of modern anthropology, said: marriage is “a social institution with a biological foundation”

Bertrand Russell, the great libertarian and atheist philosopher, said: “It is through children alone that sexual relations become of importance to society, and worthy to be taken cognisance of by a legal institution.”

The reason most cultures across thousands of years have had some concept resembling marriage, almost always between a man and a woman, is because a heterosexual relationship has a procreative nature and they have wished to recognise this.

That is my basis for believing marriage is about children. What about you? If you’re saying marriage isn’t about children because some marriages don’t produce children, you’re simply wrong. Some marriages don’t involve love, but that doesn’t mean marriage is about love.

When a heterosexual marriage doesn’t produce a child, it is due to either a medical problem with its procreative nature or a decision not to use it at a given point in time. That is completely different to a same-sex couple, where there is simply the absence of a procreative nature altogether, and procreation is impossible in principle.

Daniel says:

05:39pm | 08/11/12

On what grounds? Children are not a requirement of Marriage. Having children does not require one to be Married. The purpose of Marriage is not to produce Children. Children are optional. If you want to get philosophical, Marriage is about assets.

If every advantage / right gained by being Married was solely about protecting any offspring produced, you might have a point. But it isn’t, and you don’t. It should be available to everyone, or a copy/paste identical in every single aspect version - except for the precious word ‘Marriage’.

Another Chris says:

06:20pm | 08/11/12

Blazes, be quiet- you’re making too much sense and people won’t listen to you.

Kordez says:

02:44pm | 08/11/12

@KK, the Marriage Act was changed by John Howard in 2004 overnight to state the words “male and female” to prevent an amendment from being made which would have allowed same sex relationships recognised under the Marriage Act. So let’s not pretend The Marriage Act has always been about marriage between a male and female.
In fact it was this discriminatory action which set the gay marriage movement back a decade in this country.

Daniel says:

03:51pm | 08/11/12

What the? Is this the garbage that actually goes through peoples heads? That their marriage will become null and void? That they have to re-apply for marriage licenses?

Oh another golden one, legislate inequality to celebrate diversity. Gold.

Joel M-J says:

02:45pm | 08/11/12

Marriage comes from the Latin word Maritari, and in that form, was used by the Romans.

On that basis, your religion has stolen the rightful intellectual property of Ancient Rome. I demand you give it back!

W@#ker.

Brissielad says:

02:49pm | 08/11/12

The Marriage Act in Australia is a federal law, not a church law. Most marriages in Australia are not conducted in churches. Not sure how you then conclude that the word belongs to the church when clearly most Australian marriages have absolutely nothing to do with any church. Please explain how a marriage conducted by a civil celebrant, made law by an Australian Federal Act has anything to do with the church?

Good work says:

04:55pm | 08/11/12

@ Brissielad Brilliantly said

Daniel says:

03:34pm | 08/11/12

Your institution with ‘specific meaning’ had it’s ‘meaning’ changed in 2004 to be ‘specific’. The institution won’t change, Marriage will be exactly the same, it just open to more couples. “Just be happy” is an absolute cop out. I’ll respect Marriage when it as a government institution affords equal rights to committed couples.

Daniel says:

03:42pm | 08/11/12

p.s. A question you should ask yourself is why would you be offended if gay couples could marry?

‘Marriage’ has everything to do with a equality, as it affords ‘civil rights’ to some couples, and not others.

John G. says:

03:42pm | 08/11/12

So all those infertile married people are now divorced?

And what effect does it have on you if other’s can get married? Does couples that get divorced effect you?

The problem “marriage” isn’t ‘just’ a concept, it’s a legal word with legal meanings and ramifications, and we as a nation are openly denying due to sexuality (ie, being bigots) to a group of people. There is no reason for that.

If you want to protect the word “marriage” so be it. Let’s scrap the legal wording and have the legal term as “civil union” for everyone, gays and hetero.  Then the word ‘marriage’ can just be a non legal non defined term that people can use however they see fit.

You can’t have respect for a word (which I see as a dumb argument anyway to be honest)... but you can’t have “respect” for a word and have it also as a legal term denied to people.

Daniel says:

05:45pm | 08/11/12

You happy that your partner could be denied seeing you on your deathbed because your family disagrees with your ‘way of life’ even if you’ve been together for 20 years? That your partner would be denied any life insurance benefits?

Joel M-J says:

04:27pm | 08/11/12

Amen…?

It’s scary how many come out of the woodwork isn’t it?

Zac says:

05:00pm | 08/11/12

You won’t see one if you don’t want to.

Servaas says:

05:24pm | 08/11/12

A good place to start is to ask yourself why (and then do the research) are relatiosnhips legally recognised at all and whether there is any need at all to recognise two men or two women in relationship as the exact same thing as a man and a woman who are in relationship and what type of commitment they towards eachother. After you’ve answered that you ask yourself whether any sort of relationship ought to be excluded from this recognition and why. It’s actually very straightforward but I have found people don’t care much about logic, rationality and such, they have their emotions control them.

Zac says:

06:50pm | 08/11/12

Thanks for preaching Nikki. Now try not wasting your time on this minority pet issues. Try taking care of your kids and your PARTNER.  Rechecked, you are married, so he should be your husband. Gullible fools like us will let you know when it is time to listen to your preaching again. Bye.