If you’re like me, you’ve been wondering with trepidation what will happen when the Gaypocalypse finally strikes.


Are fudge-packers, nancy-boys, and pillow-biters all names for the same thing, or do they signify a hierarchy of types and sizes, like orcs? Which are most dangerous? And where do the Poohole Pirates come in? Are they like the Men of Harad?

What about elephants? Will there be elephants? Will they be pink? Will we be forced to toil in underground sequin mines while Freddy Mercury lashes us with moustachioed falsetto arpeggios? And dear God, why didn’t we listen to Fred Nile?

Thank the Lord we’ve got an unlikely band of warrior heroes placing themselves between us and gaystruction. The Elven Queen Miranda Devine will brew arcane potions, able to fuse completely unrelated concepts with the power of saying she’s a Catholic. Barnaby Joyce will club any stray bits of logic that escape, while Action Bob Katter will ride in on the white bull Shadowhats, wielding the Black Rubber Fist-Pump of Infinite Justice.

And weren’t they active last week? Laying down the early markers in the fight to preserve our grandchildren’s grandchildren’s right to feel guilty and ashamed. Katter and Joyce got busy at an anti-gay-marriage rally in Canberra organised by that font of Messianic compassion, the Australian Christian Lobby. Devine got busy in the confines of her print column. We’ll put up with your weird ways, went the Trio’s message, as long as you remember that your relationships will never quite measure up to ours.

Now, saying that Katter is crazy is like saying the ocean is sizeable: he doesn’t care as long as you’re not a poof. Not that he knows what they look like, because there aren’t any in Queensland. Five-star rating site The Spontaneity Review summed up Katter well: “There’s a big part of me that really enjoys the sheer batshit insanity that his presence entails. However the most absurd part of the Katter phenomenon is that I trust him… he’s the kind of crazy where you can predict to an extent what he is going to be crazy about.”

His wingman is of a different stripe. If you dug to the bottom of Patrick Bateman’s subconscious, you’d find Barnaby Joyce, trapped in amber, face locked in an eternal Munchian scream. He has an uncanny ability to take a piece of information, and then extrapolate a random conclusion from it, in such a swift and absent arc of reasoning that the universe’s wormholes tremble in the void.

“My mother and father were married. Mum and Dad. I know what a marriage is,” he told the assembled throng. I know what childbirth was in nineteen-fifty-blot, too, Barney: get a basin of hot water and some towels and hope she lived. That may not entirely imply that it’s the way forward.

He pressed on with a reference to his daughters. “We know that the best protection for those girls is that they get themselves into a secure relationship with a loving husband and I want that to happen for them. I don’t want any legislator to take that right away from me.”

Here you get the full glory of the Joyce mind-turbine in motion. One, letting gay people get married will automatically remove that right from straight people. It’s in the small print, trust us. Two, gayness naturally corrodes secure hetero relationships. It does this by emitting an unusually high concentration of fabulon, a not-so-Noble gas. Three, a woman’s primary need in life is protection by a strong man, because God knows those Mongols have been stirring of late.

And four? The love lives of his adult children are something over which Barnaby personally has rights. They’re only women, for Christ’s sake, you can’t have them running around untethered…

Katter, never afraid to be late to any party, demanded that we get the word ‘gay’ back. “Nobody has the right to take that word off us!” he said, thankfully reinforcing the neglected notion of an us-and-them divide.

Katter will also agitate for the return to hetero culture of the words ‘divine’, ‘caramel’, and ‘docking’, as well as leather chaps, jaunty scarves, the rainbow, decorative butt plugs, sack-waxes, and the nothin’-suss man-on-man wristy (sometimes after a few weeks out bush you just need a quick swag-rustler, y’know? It’s not poofter unless you say the bloke’s name.)

Devine, meanwhile, was writing a two-pronged piece lamenting the rise of a “fatherless society” as the cause of the London riots, and discussing Penny Wong’s prospective baby. She then put on her bright yellow Outrage hat when people suggested she was linking the two. (For reference, apparently disagreeing with Miranda Devine is the definition of “left-wing”.)

Devine didn’t pin the riots on lesbians, as some (mostly satirical) readings implied, but she did use the concept of fatherlessness to equate a struggling, poverty-stricken, single-parent, housing commission existence with a loving, stable, and wealthy upbringing by two women.

Good parenting relies on good parents. No-one could care less about the categories you sort them into than their own children.

Even Devine was falling over her contradictions. “Wong and her partner, Sophie Allouache, will no doubt be fine mothers, with the financial and personal competence to provide their child a stable, loving upbringing,” she wrote as she concluded, leading one to ponder the purpose of the preceding 872 words.

A good number of those words were spent talking down gay marriage. After careful study, at least five of them proved to be accurate. “The issue is largely symbolic,” said Devine. Yes, it is. It symbolises acceptance of people who have historically been persecuted. And it costs nothing of anyone else.

Which brings us to the crux of the whole issue – the perplexing question of why anyone would need to oppose it in the first place.

It’s frustrating. Argue against that opposition, and you’re tagged as an ‘advocate’. I don’t advocate gay marriage any more than I advocate eating potato salad for breakfast. I just think it makes zero sense for other people to campaign against it. What the fuck do you care? Eat your cornflakes and shut your stupid-hole.

The argument, it seems, is that by eating something else, other people compromise Barnaby Joyce’s fundamental concept of breakfast. Joyce & Co. have an idea of what breakfast is – toast, cereal, glass of orange juice, perhaps – and different configurations, however remote, threaten its very breakfastness.

Well, guess what? In France they have a bowl of hot chocolate for breakfast. In Argentina they have a tiny croissant and a tiny coffee and wonder why everyone is angry until lunchtime. In Brazil they have ham and cheese rolls and blended açai berries. In Yorkshire they have blood sausage. None of which make your breakfast back in Queensland any less your breakfast.

Arguments that “the definition of marriage is between a man and blahcetera” are facile. Words do not dictate the form of what they describe, they shift meaning as their subject does. Language has always been fluid. “Brazilian” gets co-opted by beauticians, “facial” gets taken away from them. The fact that you understand a word to mean a certain thing does not oblige it to do so in perpetuity.

Or if you insist on playing dictionary, try the Complete Oxford: “To unite intimately, join closely or permanently.” Ideas can be married. Ropes can be married. Couples can be married. Gender doesn’t come into it.

Not to mention that half of Australia’s hetero marriages end in divorce, and given domestic abuse, emotional cruelty, infidelity, and stagnant dissatisfaction, a stack of the other half really should. Good, functional, long-running marriages are like late-round Survivor contestants. Calling that institution the solid foundation of anything is wishful thinking.

Then there are sidetrack arguments, like the behaviour of lobbyists. Sure, various things about the gay lobby are irritating. GLBTI sounds like a toasted sandwich. Discussing Bert and Ernie’s marital status is mind-bendingly trivial. Like any activists, some are shrill and self-righteous and annoying. Some people associated with a cause don’t actually help it. Hello, Miranda.

But here’s the great shock for the likes of Joyce, Katter, and Devine. The gay lobby does not equal gay people. Those people are many and varied. (And no, a toasted sandwich is not when three wasted guys get it on.)

Gay people are also… people. Try it without the adjective. And the way they live, love, and define their relationships is, I’m sorry to say, not the slightest shred of your business.

But the things you say and do still affect them, which is the real reason this is worth talking about. Gay teenagers attempt suicide at an estimated ten times the rate of straight kids. Katter has campaigned extensively on high suicide rates in regional areas, as evidence of city politicians letting country people down. This should be an issue close to his heart.

As Tom Ballard’s video response to Devine suggested, every column like hers, every soundbite like Katter’s, is saying to those kids (and the peers who make their lives miserable) that no matter how hard they try, or how far they go, they will never quite be as good as ‘normal’ people. Their parenting, their relationships, their love, will always have a caveat attached. NQR. Slightly shop-soiled.

Like the wheelbarrow-load that greets Biff in Back to the Future III, it’s horseshit. The entire set of ACL-sponsored objections is. Strip back the self-justification, and boil it down to simple truths. What other people do in their own lives does not affect you. Other people getting married does not make you any more or less married. Your marriage is between you and one other person. That’s a wrap.

Or maybe not. Maybe the rainbow storm is brewing. Maybe the Four Hairstylists are about to saddle up their Vespas and mince across the sky. Maybe the demon-lord Xanadu is about to engulf us in streams of burning Swiss Navy lube. If so, then Joyce, Katter, and Devine will need to keep their strength up. Maybe some Weet Bix. Bircher muesli with yoghurt. Bacon and eggs.

Whatever you like. It’s breakfast. Make a choice and eat your own.

390 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • John C says:

      06:08am | 22/08/11

      While having no objection in principle to allowing same sex marriages, I find the arguments in this piece facile at best. The breakfast analogy is ridiculous. You could use the same model to argue in favor of allowing anything that others do - unlimited gun ownership, stoning of adulterers?

    • Gary Cox says:

      06:58am | 22/08/11

      I agree. I wish they’d just let them get married so that everyone could get on with their lives and not have to put up with all the whinging, whining and stupid articles from both sides of the debate. It’s a bit like the saying sorry to the aboriginals debate a few years back. It was a debate that whatever happened didn’t really make any difference to the majority of the population, yet every man and his dog had opinion on it and felt they had to voice it until finally Ruddy said sorry and we haven’t heard any more since. So for God’s sake please Julia let them get married so that we can have some peace.

    • Chris_D says:

      07:31am | 22/08/11

      @John C, if we take the breakfast analogy, it is fair to say that menu’s are gernerally divided into different sections.  Meat, pasta, vegetarian, salad,  not to mention breakfast, lunch, dinner, dessert.

    • Geoff Lemon says:

      09:23am | 22/08/11

      John C - no, you really couldn’t use the same model in that way. Know why? Because your examples involve choices that directly affect other people. My example involves personal choices that affect no-one. Hence… oh, the entire point of the article?

    • Adam Diver says:

      09:28am | 22/08/11

      @ Gary Cox, that is the most persuasive argument I have heard on this topic to date. I am now a fully fledged supporter of gay marriage, but if the gay lobby move onto another issue after this one, then I will be pissed.

    • Aaron says:

      09:36am | 22/08/11

      I didn’t even finsih reading because the author tried to use humour to make the pollies sound like their living in a fantasy world. AND IT WAS SO BORING!!! My goodness, present the facts, then your opinion, you don’t have to try to be funny!

    • James1 says:

      09:55am | 22/08/11

      I think that stoning adulterers does affect other people.  The point of the breakfast analogy is that gay marriage does not affect others - stoning adulterers patently does this.  It seems the problem is not with the analogy, but your understanding of it.

    • Michael N says:

      10:25am | 22/08/11

      The fundamentals of the argument are this: “you are free to do whatever you desire so long as your actions do not prevent me from doing whatever I desire.” I might disagree with children being brought up in single-parent households but it is not my place to oppose it, nor governments to rule against it, because my freedoms are not curtailed as a consequence. Gay marriage is no different and that is the crux of the breakfast analogy.

    • Geoffrey Chaucer says:

      10:35am | 22/08/11

      While being neutral on the issue, the nagging question in my mind is why would they want to get married in the first place?

      Haven’t they heard of the problems marriage dishes out to heterosexual couples . . . such as divorce, court rooms, property settlement, hungry lawyers, etc.

    • andye says:

      11:03am | 22/08/11

      Agree or not, you have just clearly demonstrated that you didn’t actually understand the point of the breakfast analogy.

    • Alana R says:

      11:38am | 22/08/11

      Actually, no, the breakfast argument is extremely relevant and a good analogy. It’s not like unlimited gun ownership or stoning of adulterers because those activities harm others while your choice of breakfast menu does not. This is similar to gay marriage in that it does not hurt anyone and the only people it affects, are those getting married.

      It’s completly ridiculous to say that the analogy relates to activities which have harm and death associated with them.

    • glen says:

      01:13pm | 22/08/11

      @Geoff lemon ,  No your analogy is flawed , Gay marriage does affect me. As a married couple the value of our relationship is debased by allowing single sex marriage. If you continually accept that marriage should be available to all unions then what will be next? As you yourself suggest “ropes can be married” .. you prove my point. Your entire arguement is flawed logic.

    • remlap says:

      01:32pm | 22/08/11

      @glen
      Please describe, in detail, the myriad ways in which the value of your marriage is debased by allowing same-sex marriages. Ensure these are tangible and measurable, not opinion and feeling.

    • kate says:

      01:39pm | 22/08/11

      “As a married couple the value of our relationship is debased by allowing single sex marriage”

      Seriously?  Your loving, monogamous, freely consented-to adult commitment is only valuable because certain other loving, monogamous, freely consenting unrelated adults are banned from marrying?  You only love your wife because I can’t marry mine?

      That’s a pretty sad comment on your marriage.

    • AJ says:

      02:07pm | 22/08/11

      @glen
      I’m not sure if you are being sarcastic here or not, but…really? How is the ‘value of your relationship’ affected IN ANY WAY by gay marriage?
      What, with all them gays gettin married, will the marriage market be flooded with cheap inferior marriages, thus lowering the ‘value’ of your investment?

      You say that Geoffs arguments are based on flawed logic, even if that was true at least it was logic of some kind, not just plain old bigotry.

    • acotrel says:

      02:56pm | 22/08/11

      It’s strange law when people can be prohibited from entering a contract because of their sexuality?  I wonder what the Australian Standard on contracts says about it?

    • acotrel says:

      03:01pm | 22/08/11

      @Gary Cox
      Saying sorry to aboriginals was different.  The gays aren’t in a position to approach the ICJ in the Hague, and possibly regain posession of Australia, seeing as the Aborigines legally own it!
      I wonder if there are any gay aborigines who want to get married?

    • Sam says:

      04:12pm | 22/08/11

      How does gun ownership effect anyone else?

    • Sam says:

      04:12pm | 22/08/11

      How does gun ownership effect anyone else?

    • Anonymous says:

      06:50pm | 22/08/11

      If that is really what you have taken out of this, then you have missed the fundamental point that the author is making. The main point is that by getting married, gay people aren’t impeding on anyone else’s rights or lives. Don’t equate the breakfast analogy to allowing stoning adulterers, because getting smashed in the head by a stone obviously involves impeding on someone else’s right to live. Every analogy and metaphor in this piece is back-up for the concept that people’s business is their own business, and that people should mind their own shit because gay marriage causes no problems and doesn’t intrude into personal lives of others or rights.

    • John of Brisbane says:

      08:18pm | 22/08/11

      I am just curious as to what other group will use these same “arguments” to justify their right to “marriage”.  mm let me see ... two consenting adults who happen to be father and daughter, or maybe polygomous groups, a man and his sheep, ...don’t laugh ... this is before the courts in countries where “gay” marriage is already “legal”. Will the gay lobby ..lobby as hard for them. We are not talking about equal rights here folks, each individual has the same rights, we are talking about relationships and no matter how many breakfasts you have, they are not all equal. What is so wrong about calling a heterosexual relationship marriage and a gay relationship something else…. because IT IS.

    • Rich says:

      12:27am | 23/08/11

      I used to have a more open mind about gay marriage, in fact I celebrated at the wedding of a family member to a member of the same sex.

      Recently though I have shifted in my thinking based on the ridiculous calls for Bert and Ernie to be married/defined as a gay couple. To me this is a signal that the debate on gay rights and societal norms won’t end even if gays and straights were 100% equal in their ability to wed.

      Bert and Ernie are characters on a children’s show targeted at an age where children have simplistic views on life and love and can’t truly fathom concepts like sexuality.

      The call for labels to be taught to children reinforces the use of label in the first place. Why can’t things be left ambiguously between these two and allow children to form their own views.

      Bert and Ernie may or may not have been intended as a gay couple, but like marriage, you can’t amend the definition of their relationship and act like it doesn’t it alter the relationship from friendship to love. These are powerful concepts and little consideration seems to have been given to why this change is necessary.

      So I worry that this debate is more than just about equality, it’s about shifting definitions to suit one particular view.

    • Perkin Warbeck says:

      02:13am | 23/08/11

      So, John of Brisbane, you’d like to keep your little club all for yourself and your like narrow minded people and deny other people who for all intents and purposes are the same as you. Well done.

      How many polygamous marriages have been legally performed in Sweden? How many father/daughter marriages have been legally performed in Canada? How many woman/bull marriages have been performed in Spain? How many man/marijuana marriages have legally been performed in the Netherlands? How many adult/child marriages have been performed legally in South Africa? (All of these since those countries enacted marriage equality.)

      I’ll save you the time - NONE. Because your argument that is called “the slippery slope” is a fallacy as is your little hand grenade of a comment that these “other” types of marriage are before the courts in countries that have legislated for marriage equality. No, John of Brisbane, there aren’t any. If you can provide full, balanced details then please go ahead.
      I’m waiting patiently….

    • Craig says:

      07:14am | 23/08/11

      If those who are afeared of gay people really wanted to screw homosexuals (excuse the pun), they would support gay marriage, but oppose gay divorce.

      Imagine only being allowed the same breakfast every day for life. It would be as painful as Catholicism!

    • Mark says:

      09:32am | 23/08/11

      @Sam, you have to be trolling, right?? Surely you couldn’t look at America and think “Fuck yeah, we need more guns.” An yes, I know, guns don’t kill people, people do. But giving people the means to do it more efficiently certainly perpetuates the issue. But hey, let’s follow a constitutional amendment from another country that’s 300 years old. Sure, sounds logical.

    • Max, of Rocky says:

      01:01pm | 23/08/11

      Codswallop,

      the next thing you will be advocating is that if a human is able to procreate then they should be allowed to by law. Real puberty blues!

      The “if it feels good do it” attitude is what is ruining this country and marriage.  Look at the results of the attitude to sex now, highest divorce rates ever, and that’s the people that married in the first place.

      “Partners” are not wives or husbands, “partners” is a degenerate term promoting the idea that lacks true commitment , and infers same sex “partners” are equivalent to married couples. 

      Not so !  Children need fathers and mothers in stable relationships.

      This can never be delivered by same sex partners even if they are “married”    8-(

    • Erick says:

      06:19am | 22/08/11

      I see a lot of cheap name-calling, sarcasm and mockery in the article above, but precious little logic.

      Here is an actual logical proposition: if gay marriage is allowed, then polygamous marriage and incestuous marriage should also be allowed.

      The arguments in favour of all three are exactly the same in form. Discuss.

    • MrMac says:

      07:02am | 22/08/11

      As far as allowing polygamous or incestuous marriage, that is the slippery slope illogical fallacy that allowing something in one sphere results in allowing something else in another sphere.  It is also the composition fallacy, and the Tu Quoque fallacy.

      Yes the author has employed satire and sarcasm. Largely, in response to the same.

    • Timmy says:

      07:08am | 22/08/11

      A friend of mine said that last week his 84 year old mother called him a bigoted homophobe when he questioned the idea of gay marriage. He recalled a time when she was in her late 40’s that she told him that homosexuality was against created order. He was shocked at the change.

      It goes to show how effective ad hominem is at changing attitudes. People in general “support” gay agendas such as gay marriage because they fear being labelled in the way that Geoff so effectively does.

      I see no real arguments for changing the definition of marriage (which is by definition exclusive) in this article. All I see is “people who are against us are dumb selfish idiots)

    • Tedd says:

      07:53am | 22/08/11

      Timmy, that 84 yr old’s change in attitude is not necessarily due to ‘ad hominem’, it is likely the argument that changed her attitude is better than that.

      People now recognise the fact that almost all homosexuals do not chose their sexuality.

    • Michael says:

      08:18am | 22/08/11

      It’s not the same arguement Erick, and some might even say it was deliberately leading of you to reference gay marriage in connection with incestuous relations, morality etc… the real answer to not allow incest is genetics and health related issues in children.

      Polygamy is about multiple partners, you would have been better off waiting till gay marriage was allowed then asking for gay polygamy to be included where heterosexual polygamy is allowed, hmmm that brings me to mimxed polygamy for the bisexual married couple.

    • Erick says:

      08:32am | 22/08/11

      No, MrMac.

      The main argument for gay marriage is that consenting adults should be able to marry each other. It follows from this that consenting adults should be able to marry people of the opposite sex, of the same sex, of any number, and of any relation.

      There is no logical argument for allowing gay marriage that cannot be applied with equal validity to polygamous and incestuous marriage.

    • Fiona says:

      09:03am | 22/08/11

      Incestuous marriage, which has the higher than usual potential to produce children with deformities, should possibly remain illegal, for that reason if no other.

    • Tubesteak says:

      09:04am | 22/08/11

      Nothing wrong with polygamy, except for the fact that you’d have more than one woman nagging you and at least twice the PMS every month and probably not as much sex as you’d be hoping for (as a trade-off for the first two).

      Currently, any act of bigamy or polygamy merely invalidates all subsequent marriages.

      Incest is still considered a crime due to the nature of influence one has over the other. However, it’s not illegal for cousins to get married or have sex (not that I’d do that)

      As long as it is between adults who are capable of giving consent (ie not under a legal disability such as duress, mental condition etc) then there should be no problems with it.

      The State should afford them every right under the law that current married couples have.

    • Budz says:

      09:05am | 22/08/11

      Why is polygamy banned anyway? Can someone tell me? Is there some harm in it that I am missing?

    • JohnB says:

      09:06am | 22/08/11

      Okay Erick. I have no problem with what anyone wants to do that doesn’t affect any one else.

      I’d love to move on from gay marriage. Give the gay community what they want and deserve. I can imagine if one of my kids end up being gay, I’d well and truly want for them what makes them happy…...

      I see the gay marriage debate is why this ridiculous government got in. While we dither with policies that matter not one bit at all to most Australians, the government is ruining Australia with their NBN and carbon tax.

    • Tim says:

      09:32am | 22/08/11

      MrMac,
      no the logical arguments used for all of these things are the same.
      ie Marriage Equality for everyone.

      Apparently they definition of everyone doesn’t include polygamists or incestuous couples to gay marriage proponents.

      If Gay marriage proponents dropped the marriage equality argument and just said they wanted gay marriage because….....  then you might have a point.

    • Direct says:

      09:36am | 22/08/11

      MrMac, you didn’t address the proposition at all. All you had to do was find an argument in favour of either gay marriage, polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage that couldn’t be used in the same form and applied to the others and you would have shown that Erick’s proposition wasn’t logically sound.

      Did you want another crack or are you happy to take a fail for your Introduction to Critical Reasoning course.

    • fml says:

      10:13am | 22/08/11

      Erick, that is the anti-thesis of logic, each should be judged on their own merits.

    • Benrama says:

      10:27am | 22/08/11

      A fair point Eric. In both cases there are differing reasons as to why we as a society tend to frown upon them. In the case of polygamy, who the hell would actually want five wives? Then five ex-wives. Are you with me men? In all seriousness though I personally don’t see how it can be argued against for exactly the same reasons as gay marriage, hence have no issues with it. 
        In regards to Incestuous relationships, they first need to be defined. Under Australian law (and in many other parts of the world) first cousins can marry, provided they’re not the same sex (insert smiling emoticon here). Personally I find a first cousins relationship far stranger than a homosexual one, though that’s just me. In regards to offspring, the chance of the children of a first cousin relationship showing birth abnormalities is still very low, roughly 1% more likely than that of a “normal” boy meets girl relationship. When it comes to the offspring of brother/sister or parent/child relationships, the number begins to skyrocket, with most studies showing around 25-50% of births resulting in genetic abnormalities. Clearly not an issue for most gay couples, provided they borrow the sperm or an egg from the right source. This is all of course dependent on an incestuous couple having children. If they are unable to, as much as I am really abhorred by it, don’t feel I could oppose legally.

    • Shane* says:

      10:45am | 22/08/11

      Erick’s logic is sound and you can’t just dismiss it as a “slippery slope fallacy” and ignore the point he’s made.

      At the moment, the gay marriage lobby is pissed off at how exclusionary the current legal definition of marriage is. “It’s too restrictive and it doesn’t allow people to have their love recognised by the state!” they cry.

      OK, but then isn’t it a tad hypocritical to say that polygamists or those in incestuous relationships cannot marry? After all, they too are consenting adults who are in love?

    • Matt F says:

      10:50am | 22/08/11

      Direct - I would argue that incestuous marriages are very different and an irrelevant comparison because of the natural power balance that exists in a family structure i.e. the parent always has a natural position of power over a child and even an older sibling may have it over a younger sibling as well. Sort of like how a 17 year old can legally have a relationship with a 40 year old but not if they’re student/teacher as there is a potential abuse of power.

      As for polygomy that’s a harder line to seperate. Although I guess if people want to do that then maybe they should be allowed to do so. It’s not my thing but if it makes people happy and doesn’t hurt anyone….

      Having said that marriage has always been adapted and altered to suit societies’ beliefs of the time. Whether that be that be imposing minimum age restrictions, allowing marriage to be the choice of the couple participating rather then then arranged by their families, or even mixed race marriages, society has constantly changed it’s legal definition of marriage to suit it’s evolving beliefs. Polls consitantly show a clear majority support same sex marriage. When a poll shows the same thing for polygamy then we’ll talk.

    • Chris_D says:

      11:01am | 22/08/11

      @fml, I agree, each should be judged on it’s own merits, and each should have an act drawn up to encompass the “merits” that they fall under.  This is why I believe same-sex marriage should have it’s own, separate act.

    • Barry says:

      11:06am | 22/08/11

      @LC
      It’s not a slippery slope argument at all, Erick didn’t state that incestuous marriage would follow after gay marriage, but rather the arguments used to justify one are transferrable to another.  This is entirely correct.  The argument for gay marriage typically revolves around the idea that if two people are in love, then they should be allowed to engage in consental marriage, and to deny them that “right, which we apparently all possess, is a form of discrimination.  Is this not transferable to incestuous relationships?  If people don’t believe so then support the position rather than attempting to hide behind such diversion tactics as Tu Quoque, which is becoming all too common for pseudo-intellectuals.  Let’s bring genetics into the discussion, I’m always intrigued to see whether or not people think the state should put prohibitions on people with genetic disorders breeding.  I thought this was most appropriate, notice the retaliation when the pseudo-intellectual’s ideas are challenged . . . sounds familiar.

      Pseudo-intellectuals are people of average intelligence who are enchanted with highly intellectual topics and discussions such as philosophy, socioeconomics, destiny of humanity, etc.

      Unlike a genuine academic, a pseudo-intellectual’s main reason for being interested in these topics is because it makes him feel intellectually superior to his peers. He usually despises main stream culture, accuses those who disagree with him as being ignorant, and when his ideas are challenged, he often retaliates with “That’s a strawman argument!”

      “Pseudo-intellectuals can often be found in political discussion boards on the internet, patronizing boutique shops, participating in various Anti-something rallies, sitting on a park’s bench during a weekend afternoon and playing a guitar, or spending eight consecutive years in college trying to earn a B.A degree in political science or philosophy.”

    • marley says:

      11:08am | 22/08/11

      @Erick: countries which recognize same sex marriage define marriage along the lines of “a lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.”  Logically, that precludes polygamous relationships.  While groups who practice polygamy are free to pursue efforts to change the marriage law, it does not follow that the broadening of the definition of marriage from “exclusive union between a man and a woman” to “exclusive union between two people” will change the inherent view in western society that marriage is a commitment between two, and only two, people.

      As for incestuous marriages, they are unlawful, however many people, of whatever sex might be involved.  I doubt that the law is going to change any time on this point either. 

      The point here is that the issue isn’t so much marriage as equality - that two people in a permanent relationship should have access to the same civil process irrespective of whether they are heterosexual or homosexual.  Polygamy doesn’t fit; and the same rules apply to both straight and gay marriages when it comes to incest.  Ergo, equality.

    • Bev says:

      11:21am | 22/08/11

      Matt F says:10:50am | 22/08/11
      Polls consitantly show a clear majority support same sex marriage.
      No the polls say people think it’s inevitable.  That does not mean they agree with the idea.  My guess they feel its being pushed down their throats and they feel powerless to stop it.

    • Thomas Anderson says:

      11:29am | 22/08/11

      There is already an inconsistency in law which deems some drugs legal (think alcohol, tobacco), while many others illegal.

      I think the gay activists want to create another inconsistency, where gay marriages are legal, but incestuous and polygamous marriages remain illegal, perhaps because they are considered a deviation from the norm.

    • MrMac says:

      11:29am | 22/08/11

      Erick says: 08:32am
      Tim says: 09:32am
      Direct says: 09:36am

      The proposition that proponents of gay marriage for consenting adult couples (who are not closely related) ....

      ....also want marriage for more than a couple, for closely-related people, or for non-adults, ....

      .... is a misrepresentation (a strawman fallacy), a red-herring fallacy, and a non-sequitur.

    • JC says:

      11:36am | 22/08/11

      Couldn’t you say the same thing about hetero marriage?
      Also, wouldn’t you need people to support incestuous marriage for it to be allowed? I would think hardly anyone on the left or right would support that.

    • Alana R says:

      11:44am | 22/08/11

      In Australia, if you come over from another country in a polygamous or polyandrous marriage, then that’s okay. It’s seen as legitimate. You can’t get married into one of those here, but you can move over in one.

      If you move over in a homosexual marriage, it’s not seen as legitimate.

      In addition to this, polygamous and polyandrous marriages de-value the worth of one gender (depending on which marriage) as nothing more than mere property. Those marriages are also in no way based on love or affection and that’s why they are not allowed here.

      The roots of those marriages was owning the women (or men) and relates back to one gender having no rights and being under the control of their husband and living with the other women in what can only be described as a personal brothel for the owner/partner.

      The arguments are not anywhere near the same.

    • Pete says:

      11:58am | 22/08/11

      Erick is correct.  This article is a logic fail.

      I think the reality is that there is no logic when it comes to what is or isn’t “marriage”.  It is what we want it to be.

      So the question is simply “do we want homosexuals to be married - like heterosexual couples - or not?”.  I say no, because I don’t see the point.  But that’s me.

    • Tchom says:

      11:59am | 22/08/11

      But if we DON’T allow gay marriage, its only a matter of time until hetro marriage is illegal too! Who knows which way this slope will slip?

    • Bev says:

      12:07pm | 22/08/11

      LC says:09:29am | 22/08/11
      Discussion over, Erick, that is, unless you can offer a non-fallicious argument.
      Has not the claims and advances of the homosexual lobby followed a series of logical steps?  With each step they have claimed that is all they want.  From decriminalization of homosexuality (agreed) to step by step legalization to recognize legal and financial claims.  Each claim becomes the new baseline for the next advance.  Boiling frogs come to mind. What is the next step if they achieve this one?

    • kate says:

      12:08pm | 22/08/11

      @Bev “Polls consitantly show a clear majority support same sex marriage. No the polls say people think it’s inevitable. “

      Bev, that’s simply not true.  In fact, the polls consistently say that a majority of people SUPPORT marriage equality.  (An even larger majority believe it’s inevitable, but that is an entirely separate issue)  A quick google search will find you links to polls published by Galaxy, Neilson & Roy Morgan, in 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 and the result is the same EVERY SINGLE TIME.  A majority (an increasing majority) SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE.

      The fact that you, personally, don’t support it, doesn’t actually change that fact.

    • CynicalGoatWA says:

      12:14pm | 22/08/11

      Matt F .No, the polls show that people think it’s inevitable NOT a majority in support…..two different things. How about this question Pal? Do you think Death is inevitable?? Guarantee 100% of people agree with the sentiment…..but I equally reckon close to 100% are against it.

    • HappyCynic says:

      12:21pm | 22/08/11

      @Erick, Barry et al

      You’re deliberately muddying the waters with separate forms of “discrimination” in the marriage act.  Why shouldn’t polygamy and incest be tested separately?  They do afterall have different hurdles to overcome, particularly incest which has to overcome various negative health and psychological concerns, psychological concerns that could seriously impede a person’s state of mind.  Since a person who is not of sound mind can not enter into any contract and a marriage is just a legal contract, incestuous relationships must overcome this legal barrier as well.

      Polygamy has other separate issues to overcome that requires a different argument again to both gay and incestuous marriages.  These include gender imbalances, power imbalances within the relationship (humans are jealous etc.) and various legal issues that large tracts of Family Law are not equipped to handle (divorce for example and more).

      Homosexuality has no negative health or psychological concerns and none of the Family Law issues or gender and power issues that may be prevalent in polygamous relationships therefore your argument that incestuous, polygamous and homosexual marriages are the same and that the argument supporting one is directly transferrable to the other is incorrect, misleading and invalid since the argument for gay marriage doesn’t address all the other concerns and doesn’t require large amounts of Family Law needing to be re-written.

    • D emoman says:

      12:23pm | 22/08/11

      Studies in Newtown show that the Australian people think gay marriage should be legal.

    • James. says:

      12:25pm | 22/08/11

      @ Bev.

      http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/Galaxy200906.pdf

      No they don’t.

      “The majority (58%) of Australians agree
      that Australian law should recognise these marriages in the same way it recognises opposite-sex marriages
      from these countries (28% strongly agree, 31% agree). Conversely, 36% disagree (20% strongly disagree, 16%
      disagree).”

      Galaxy’s poll is the predominate statistic that is referenced. There are others though - many of which don’t ask ‘do you think it is inevitable that…”  - that are more recent, have even higher support AND ask whether the participant supports gay marriage, not if they believe it is inevitable.

      It’s not hurting anybody guys. I’m not gay. However, I have put a lot of thought into this topic. I haven’t heard one persuading arguement against same-sex marriage; ever. A lot of them seem half baked, and quite frankly, a little spiteful.

      Is it truly going to hurt you, your family or the nation?

    • Bev says:

      12:26pm | 22/08/11

      kate says:12:08pm | 22/08/11

      @Bev “Polls consitantly show a clear majority support same sex marriage. No the polls say people think it’s inevitable. “

      Bev, that’s simply not true.
      Sorry the poll (which supports quote) had the wording: Do you believe gay marriage in Australia is inevitable?  I believe it was in the Age.

    • Bev says:

      01:03pm | 22/08/11

      James. says:12:25pm | 22/08/11
      Ok I stand corrected on the wording of some polls.

      Is it truly going to hurt you, your family or the nation?
      Going on what the ills that social experimentation in the last 40 years yes. This is just another social experiment engineered by the usual suspects who thought it wasa good idea at the time.  We have already seen some of the legal and as yet undefined ramifications showing up.  These effects can only increase with time. Would you have picked the encouragement of single motherhood for instance all those years ago would have been a fact in the London riots?  Most would not have.  Similar (but different) arguments were advanced then.

    • Thomas Anderson says:

      01:06pm | 22/08/11

      Normal marriage between a male and a female is in no danger of being criminalised. We are dealing with examples of abnormal marriages here, Tchom.

      I think JC has made a good point, namely that the only logical difference between gay marriage and incestuous marriage is that there are no people campaigning for incestuous marriage, likely in fear of public opinion.

      However, the point still stands - if you support gay marriage, you cannot be opposed to other abnormal marriages, such as the incestuous marriage, without being an obvious hypocrite.

    • Matt F says:

      01:17pm | 22/08/11

      Bev and CynicalGoatWA

      That is the result of one question from one poll. A question about actual support of SSM in the same poll showed 60% support and that figure is fairly consistant among all recent polls. For some strange reason The Punch has “blacklisted” links I’ve tried to post from The Sydney Morning Herald, Courier mail and The Age but their all on the first google page if you type in “same sex marriage poll australia results.”

      Here’s one I found that I can post. Feel free to direct me to others which show the opposite if you can.

      http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/wp/2011/08/16/poll-finds-a-majority-of-australian-christians-support-same-sex-marriage/

    • gobsmack says:

      01:38pm | 22/08/11

      @Erick
      “Here is an actual logical proposition: if gay marriage is allowed, then polygamous marriage and incestuous marriage should also be allowed.”
      No.  It’s not a logical proposition at all (I suspect it’s another instance of you engaging in dog-whistling).
      Incest and bigamy are crimes, so it would be completely illogical to allow incestuous marriage or polygamous marriage.
      Homosexual relationships are not criminal.  The question is why not allow a couple who are in a legal relationship to get married (ie to enjoy the same status afforded to other couples who can live together in a legal relationship).

    • Craig says:

      02:18pm | 22/08/11

      If polygamy is done by consenting adults and of their own free will, then why not?

    • gobsmack says:

      02:36pm | 22/08/11

      @Thomas Anderson
      “However, the point still stands - if you support gay marriage, you cannot be opposed to other abnormal marriages, such as the incestuous marriage, without being an obvious hypocrite. “
      You are mistaken.
      Incest is illegal so it would be nonsense to campaign for “incestuous marriage”.
      Not so long ago, homosexuality was illegal and, back then, it would have been ridiculous to campaign for gay marriage.
      If we ever reach the stage where incest is legal (and I doubt that will ever happen) and incestuous relationships are genearlly tolerated, then and only then would the issue of “incestuous marriages” be worth discussing.
      The point is that society has evolved to the point where homosexual relationships are no longer considered “abnormal”.  That being so, the argument is that they should be treated the same as other “normal” relationships (ie ones between a man and a woman).

    • Sian says:

      02:43pm | 22/08/11

      Because currently NOBODY can have a polygamous marriage and NOBODY can have an incestuous marriage. HOWEVER currently SOME of Australia can have a marriage and some cannot. See the problem here?

    • FINK says:

      03:06pm | 22/08/11

      Actually Erick your premise of “incestuous marriage” could actually happen if you’re gay and the way that they lobby it, it could be more than feasible.
      Take two homosexual men for example who get “Married”, they decide they want a designer baby, a Son for example, so they rent a womb for surrogacy and one of the men donates his sperm and they have a child! Now the other father who who has no genetic offspring decides he wants a child with his genetic code and this child is to be a Son as well! The original surrogate does not want to participate so they find another to have the other Males child!
      Go forward 20 years
      The two brothers (brothers by law as the 2 fathers could well be on the birth certificate as the parents if gay marriage is legalised) although they have no genetic association and will not be able to reproduce with each other can bring forward a case to have a sexual relationship as well as be married, this could also be the case even if the two brothers are genetically related as the they cannot reproduce with each other thus negating the genetic defence. You can also add that any one of the fathers can have a sexual relationship with their married partners biological son and consequently marry them! Confusing I know but more than feasible the way society is going.

    • Barry says:

      04:05pm | 22/08/11

      @Sian

      Am I missing something, or is the logic in this comment flawed?  Nobody can have a homosexual marriage either, just as nobody can have a incestuous marriage.

    • GlendaSings says:

      04:46pm | 22/08/11

      @FINK, this is a bit of a silly point. The same argument can be used for adopted chidlren - siblings who have no biological connection with each other but legal links with the same legal mother and father. If we allow for gay marriages, the number of biologically unrelated legal siblings with gay parents will be a drop in the bucket compared with the number of biologically unrelated adopted siblings or siblings from blended families.

      Like so many of the silly arguments against gay marriage, it’s a total non-issue.

    • Thomas Anderson says:

      05:10pm | 22/08/11

      @ gobsmack

      Mate, I actually addressed your previous comment before, but a moderator rejected my comment by the looks of it (because they misread it, I guess).

      What I said was that a solution to your issue would be to criminalise homosexuality, then there would be no logic difference between a homosexual marriage and an incestuous one.

      Anyway, taking your own logic of incest and polygamy being wrong only because they are illegal, guess what else is illegal? Gay marriage.

      It’s either / or, either you support (at least, not oppose) ALL abnormal marriages, or you are against ALL abnormal marriages. Does the thought of legalising incestuous marriages make you feel uncomfortable? Guess what, gay marriages make other people just as uncomfortable. But of course, they must be wrong, because only your opinion is right.

    • LC says:

      06:45pm | 22/08/11

      “With each step they have claimed that is all they want.  From decriminalization of homosexuality (agreed) to step by step legalization to recognize legal and financial claims.”

      And exactly what is wrong with that Bev?

      Thomas Anderson, we base these opinions on whether or not such actions cause harm to others. There is plenty of evidence that incestuous relationships can cause harm to both the couple themselves and to any children they may have (higher incidence of genetic defects, for one thing). Because incestuous relationships are illegal, incestuous marriage is not going to be put on the table unless incest is legalized first (and that’s not going to happen).

      However, there is no reliable evidence anywhere that suggests this is the same for homosexual relationships, hence they are not banned. Hence why gay marriage should be recognized.

      Someone who supports gay marriage but not interracial marriage would be a hypocrite. Someone who supports gay and interracial marriage but not incestuous marriage is not.

    • gobsmack says:

      08:20pm | 22/08/11

      @Thomas Anderson
      Let me make my point clearer.
      There are good reasons, apart from any issues of morality, why incest and bigamy are illegal.
      There are no good reasons why maintaining a homosexual relationship should be illegal.  Our society has matured to the point where that proposition is accepted my most people.  It is one of the things that distinguishes us from, to use an example, most middle eastern societies.
      So what is at issue here is the final distinction between two legally accepted relationships between consenting adults.
      Saying that this is the same as comparing an illegal activity with a legal activity (as suggested by Erick) is plainly wrong.
      BTW, I never said incest and bigamy are wrong only because they are illegal.  As I state above, there a number of good reasons why they should remain illegal.

    • acotrel says:

      11:06pm | 22/08/11

      @Budz
      ‘Why is polygamy banned anyway? Can someone tell me? Is there some harm in it that I am missing? ‘
      ‘Missing’ being the operative word.  If I have all the women, you won’t get any ! I’ll employ eunuchs to keep you away!

    • acotrel says:

      11:15pm | 22/08/11

      @Erick
      Certain things are specifically excluded from contracts by law,  if there is good reason.  What is the reason for excluding gays on the basis of their sexuality? An example happened when the Libs introduced AWAs, as part of Workchoices. The reasons for the exclusions were based on personal political preferences.  The gay marriage thing is much the same. Perhaps the Libs are creatures of habit? Disregarding the rights of others ? Always said the name ‘Liberal’ is false advertising!

    • acotrel says:

      11:24pm | 22/08/11

      @Pet’e
      ‘So the question is simply “do we want homosexuals to be married - like heterosexual couples - or not?”.  I say no, because I don’t see the point.  But that’s me.’

      I don’t care.  But that’s just me.  What I do care about is right wing christian fundamentalists chucking their weight a ound, and invading our bedrooms!
      A minute ago they were complaining about people muff-munching in the US.  Where does it end? Anyhing can be declared ‘an unnatural act’, and outlawed by these morons!

    • God says:

      12:53am | 23/08/11

      Why not, I suppose.
      Polygamous marriage, while not my personal cup of tea, seems reasonably enough, as long as the parties consent(and unlike olden times, arranged marriages are considerably less common and as such, it’s considerably more consensual)
      And incest is reasonable enough as well. The main flaw with incest in the past was that it resulted in poor genes over time, as bad things showed up. In a modern era, incestuous relationships(as long as they were consensual) lack that problem, largely because they wouldn’t carry on for generations, in theory.

    • Perkin Warbeck says:

      02:25am | 23/08/11

      Oh dear me, Bev. Stop rehashing Miranda (non)Devine. Dragging the wild theory that single mothers are responsible for the English riots just shows that any argument you put forward must be treated with the greatest circumspection. (As for your grudging acceptance that you were totally wrong about polls and the level of support for marriage equality.)

      I have a god-daughter who is a child of a single parent, her older half-sister (if you want to be totally technical) is also a single parent child. Neither of them is out rampaging and looting. And, let’s look at a good representation of those looters currently being tried/sentenced etc. in England - hmm: rather comfortable existence children with two intact heterosexually married parents. Not every looter of Boots, TK Maxx or Topshop was a black, underprivileged teen with an absent father and disinterested mother. In fact, very few were.

      Arguments like yours, Bev, lose debates, not win them.

    • Craig says:

      07:31am | 23/08/11

      @Thomas Anderson - your first proposition is incorrect.

      Where you should start is - if you are in favour of marriage, then there is no reason you should not be in favour of incestuous marriage or polygamy.

      After all if you support a given legal right for some people in some circumstances, surely it equally applies to all people in all circumstances.

      You should also consider the logic in practice. Humans draw arbitrary and purposeful lines.

      The line against gay marriage is arbitrary, there is no civil cost for gay marriage.

      The line against polygamy is partially arbitrary - there are real concerns regarding ownership vs partnership.

      The line against incestuous marriage is purposeful, there are significant genetic (social cost) and ownership concerns.

    • PsychoHyena says:

      10:29am | 23/08/11

      Interesting can of worms here Erick. Let us assume then that if you believe in equal rights then you believe in that without exception and therefore you believe that single-sex couples have the right to marriage, you believe in incestuous relationships, you believe in polygamy, you have no issue with Islam, you believe that the current Federal Government has the right to provide it’s citizens with laws and governance that it believes is correct for the current times.

      You can’t support one without the other mate. Oh and to cap it all off… You support the right for all immigrants, legal/illegal to be treated like humans and not animals in our fine country Australia.

    • Tom says:

      01:01pm | 23/08/11

      Very simply, Erick, the weight of evidence suggests people do not choose their sexuality. On the other hand, there is no evidence to suggest that people cannot choose whether to get involved in polygamous marriage or not, or whether to get involved with their relatives or not.

      Incestuous relationships also have the problem of an extremely high rate of genetically defective offspring. Polygamy is slightly different; my concern is of the potential for abuse and power imbalance between partners in the relationships; in many countries which allow it there is widespread abuse of partners, and many partners do not have a say as to whether another partner should join the marriage. But if I could be convinced it was between consenting adults, why not?

    • PsychoHyena says:

      06:43pm | 23/08/11

      @Tom, the interesting thing is that the illegality of polygamy is because it puts an extraordinary amount of pressure on the male to provide for his wives and children. In countries where it is allowed there are actually laws governing the number of wives a man can have based upon his current and expected future wealth.

      I agree with your comment regarding it being open for increased abuse, an abusive partner will abuse their partner whether they have one, two or twenty.

      The primary idea behind polygamy (as I can see it) is that it provides the ability for the male to have regular sex in the hopes that it diminishes his ability to be abusive, however it is also a sign of wealth in many cultures because of the requirement to pay a dowry to the woman’s family to cover the lost income she would provide (sewing, cooking, etc).

      This is also where the idea a woman becomes a man’s property once they’re married comes from, because the man must pay to marry the woman. Quite literally in those cultures the woman is the purchased property of the man, with all the responsibilities that come with the ownership of anything.

    • Paulb says:

      08:05pm | 24/08/11

      Please Erick, stop parroting American christian conservative moron talking points.  It doesn’t help anyone on either side.

    • Super D says:

      06:39am | 22/08/11

      I will never understand why homosexuals feel the need to have their relationships validated by the state.  I will never understand why there is an insistence that the acknowledgement be known as “marriage”.  I’d be happy to see the state ban non-religious heterosexual marriages - ie everyone gets a civil union if this would advance equality.

    • marley says:

      07:38am | 22/08/11

      Why does anyone feel the need to have their relationships validated by the state?  A lot of people don’t, after all - but some people still want to have that validation - otherwise there’d be no such thing as a civil marriage.  So, if heterosexuals want state validation, why is it surprising that gays do too?

    • Cassy says:

      09:59am | 22/08/11

      Having relationships validated by the state is to allow for the same legalities that heterosexual marriage provides. I am gay and I don’t give a rat’s ass what you want to call ‘gay marriage’ (really though, I don’t see why we need to add the word gay in front of it)—if using the term marriage is really too much for everyone to handle, let’s call it a civil union and give them the same rights that a marriage offers. The majority of us don’t care about the name; it’s about the rights that come with it and the recognition that yes, believe it or not, we are all human and deserve the same respect as heterosexuals that wish to commit to a life-long relationship.

    • Margaret Gray says:

      10:24am | 22/08/11

      “...heterosexuals want state validation…”

      Who says they do?

      I used to be able to call my husband my “husband”.

      Thanks to gay people I now have to refer to him as my “partner” lest I offend the sensitivitites of others and appear exclusive.

      If homosexuals are allowed to get “married” will this change again?

      Can his status in our relationship be re-validated?

    • FINK says:

      10:45am | 22/08/11

      Casey,
      I am not interested in Gay Marriage as I am not gay! However I am interested in your comment
      “let’s call it a civil union and give them the same rights that a marriage offers”. What extra rights to what you currently have does it give you?
      Also
      “we are all human and deserve the same respect as heterosexuals”
      What level of respect do you refer to? What being called Mr. and Mrs.? I am not aware of the benefits of respect that marriage entails other than raising children that the hetero couple not necessary married have produced.

    • dbee says:

      11:02am | 22/08/11

      Sorry Cassy, but what legalities if you are not referring to marriage?

      Gay couples can already be recgonised as de facto and have all the same tax/legal/social benefits of a hetero de facto/married couple

    • Chris_D says:

      11:06am | 22/08/11

      @Super D, I agree with your sentiment, but the last line I have problems with, “ie everyone gets a civil union if this would advance equality. ” 

      This is what bothers me most, this notion that “different” is seen as “in-equal” or discrimination.  I am not saying it is your belief, but it seems to me that most people who cry “discrimination” should be crying “differentiation”.  But then they wouldn’t have as much of an argument, would they?

    • Cassy says:

      11:47am | 22/08/11

      @ FINK & dbee:

      By ‘legal rights’ I am mainly referring to the fact that same-sex couples can only currently be classed as de facto couples. There are several criteria under the Family Law Act that are used to define a de facto relationship, however these can be more difficult to ascertain, as opposed to just showing a marriage certificate to prove your relationship status. This can be particularly useful in the case of adoption (i.e. being married as opposed to de facto) or in the unfortunate event of a relationship breakdown, whereby regardless of gender or sexual orientation, you are afforded the same rights in determining estate and property ownership, etc. A quick Google search can tell you more, I’m sure.

      And FINK, it’s not so much the Mr & Mrs titles - being allowed to have both parents’ names on a birth certificate of a surrogate child, for example. Presently it can be extremely difficult for same-sex couples to legally be parents of the one child. For example, the birth mother has her name on the birth certificate, father is left blank as she went through anonymous IVF, second mother cannot have name put on the birth certificate as she is not recognised as a second biological parent, can later try to ‘adopt’ the child with the birth mother to be legally recognised as one of the child’s parents.

    • Bev says:

      12:19pm | 22/08/11

      Cassy says:11:47am | 22/08/11
      Err after the recent court case involving sperm donation to a lesbian couple the “social” mother was placed on the birth certificate rather than the biological father.  What sort of nonsense is that!  It is not as if he was just a donor.  The family court had granted him visiting rights, he was paying child support and school fees he recieved school reports.  In other words he was attempting to be a father and now the court has shut him out though I would not be surprised if he is still expected to pay child support.  What a legal nightmare this is for the child in question. My guess this is the tip of the iceburg if homosexual marriage gets up.

    • SimpleSimon says:

      03:11pm | 22/08/11

      @Margaret Gray - don’t be thick. Of course you can call him your husband. What’s the point of living life in fear of offending anyone? Don’t call a spade a “digging utensil” just out of fear of offending the shovels. Call it a spade.

    • FINK says:

      03:25pm | 22/08/11

      Casey,
      The examples you have given appear to be complex and a legal minefield!
      What are the rights of the surrogate and of the Child who may wish to know of his/her biologic mother or father?
      Does this mean wholesale changes to Family Law act? how do you determine a primary caregiver when being of the same sex the care would be somewhat the equal I would assume (I make my assumption with ignorance as I would suspect that of the two males one does not assume the “typical” female role)
      Also I am a bit confused how the second mother can her name put on the birth certificate, the birth certificate is for the biological parents where known! the last time I checked you can’t have two biological mothers!
      I guess what I amtrying to say is that this is more complex than a simple changing of Man / Women to Man / Man, Woman / Man and to try and legislate these changes so all parties are looked at equally can result in an inequality in itself.

    • Craig says:

      07:47am | 23/08/11

      What really upsets me is that women get a free name change when getting marriage, whereas men do not.

      Whether people choose to take the same name, blend them, or not, this is a vestige of women being chattel, conveniently translated into a ‘tradition’.

      So will Lesbian couples get two free names changes, whereas male homosexuals have to pay?

    • Sahara says:

      06:40am | 22/08/11

      One more example of the media’s total disconnect from it’s readership. Add this issue to the London riots, the Republic and the carbon tax as well as other instances where the media believes it should educate the public into what it believes to be the “correct” way of thinking.

      Ballots on gay marriage have been defeated in just about every instance in a number of places including gay friendly California. Agree or disagree with the results, it certainly shows there is deep community concern and a well defined divide in sentiment on the issue.

      You would never know that from reading the press. Nearly every day there is an article in favour of gay marriage yet I could count the number of articles I’ve read advocating against the issue on the fingers of one hand.

      This is from a media who is supposed to offer a balanced viewpoint. I’m sorry but this isn’t the media reporting the agenda, it’s the media attempting to set the agenda.

      I can think of a number of perfectly valid and even logical arguments against legalising gay marriage as can a significant number of other people judging by the aforementioned ballots.

      However, I don’t expect to read about any of them in our left wing dominated mainstream media

    • TChong says:

      07:17am | 22/08/11

      Sarah
      What are some of these “perfectly valid and even logical arguments” ?

    • KH says:

      07:53am | 22/08/11

      Valid, ‘and even’ logical? That is hilarious.

      Well, come on then.  Let’s hear them.

    • Mike says:

      08:54am | 22/08/11

      Yeah, I’d like to see some, too…

    • LC says:

      09:34am | 22/08/11

      Indeed Sarah. Present these logical and intelligent arguments. The only ones I’ve seen so far are religious, fallacious or both.

    • Dan says:

      09:46am | 22/08/11

      Oh, please do share Sahara. I’d just love to hear these “perfectly valid” arguments I’ve been so cruelly denied by those brainwashing us all.

      Because right now, I honestly can’t think of a single reason those in a natural, loving relationship aren’t allowed to celebrate their union through marriage.

    • mike j says:

      11:02am | 22/08/11

      Settle down, Dan. You’re not on Broadway.

      Saying you’re ‘denied’ something implies you have a right to it. Perhaps you should establish that right before overacting the victim.

    • A different Rosie says:

      11:09am | 22/08/11

      Wow!  Where have you been and what do you read Sahara?  There are anti-gay marriage articles all over the place.

    • Margaret Gray says:

      11:41am | 22/08/11

      Here’s a couple:

      If we allow same sex marriage, surely it then logically follows, we should allow bigamy?

      With the abolition of civil discrimination, why do same-sex couples need to marry?  What purpose does it serve…if it’s just a “piece of paper” or a “word”?

      And then there’s having children…the nexus of most heterosexual couples marrying.

      Just as gay people claim they have rights, children also have a right to a mother and a father. 

      Having an “available male influence” is a crock and an unreasonable expectation.

      Witness the disgraceful episode two weeks ago where a father was removed from the birth certificate of his 10 YEAR OLD daughter following a demand from her mother’s lesbian former partner.

      The woman - who left more than 5 years ago - took the NSW Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages, and biological father, to court in May this year to have his name replaced with her name on the child’s birth certificate.

      It is not possible under NSW law to have three parents with legal responsibilities, so the man - the child’s biological father - was forced by a court to remove his name from the document.

      Such a shameful turn of events would be almost impossible to consider in a heterosexual marriage.

      Did anyone even think to ask the child what her feelings were?

      Sadly this issue is all almost always about gay people and their needs…little regard is given for any children in such a relationship.

      Seems a perfectly valid and logical argument to me.

    • Dan says:

      12:23pm | 22/08/11

      Yes Margaret, the old slippery slope argument.

      I do remember quite a similar kerfuffle around the time of Native Title, and even recently around the apology to the Stolen Generations. It’s funny, I’ve still got my house, and the Government hasn’t been forced into trillions of compensation.

      No one is calling for bigamy, or polygamy, or incest, or any of that crap Erick mentioned above. To link such calls with that for gay marriage is frankly a little offensive.

      If moving gay marriage from a ‘civil union’ to marriage is really just an administrative matter, why not do it? It’d simplify everything.

      A child is best raised by a loving mother and father. I agree. But in a society where so many aren’t in such a situation - most marriages end in divorce, many have just one parent, and a huge number of marriags aren’t ‘loving’ at all - it’s a pretty soft argument.

      I’d contend that a child is better raised by two loving women or men, with stable jobs, a good home, and much affection and attention to give - than in a broken, heterosexual home. There are many gay couples that would make better parents than straight couples. To prevent them raising children based on some ideal world, is just foolish.

      In 100 years time, this debate will seem as backwards as civil rights, and women’s suffrage.

    • Bev says:

      12:34pm | 22/08/11

      Margaret Gray says:11:41am | 22/08/11
      Totally agree.  There are an increasing number of cases involving children of homosexual relationships.  All nasty and all employing quite twisted logic to arrive at the decisions. As always it seems to be all about the ego’s and selfishness of the adults rather than the bewildered child/children which are the cause of the fight.

    • kate says:

      12:58pm | 22/08/11

      @Bev, the Family Court is full of nasty, bitter & twisted people using their children as pawns in their nasty, bitter & twisted fights.  The great majority of these people are heterosexual.  A teeny tiny minority are homosexual.

      None of which proves anything about the value of heterosexuals or homosexuals as parents, when millions of heterosexuals, and thousands of homosexuals are out there doing a great job raising their kids and NOT bringing the Family Court into it.

    • Margaret Gray says:

      01:06pm | 22/08/11

      “...most marriages end in divorce…”

      Rubbish.  Prove it.

      “...a huge number of marriags(sic) aren’t ‘loving’ at all…”

      To use your strawman logic then, gay marriages are all loving and committed.

      If hetero marriages are such a disasterous blueprint…why do homosexuals want in on this venerable institution?

    • Bev says:

      02:08pm | 22/08/11

      kate says:12:58pm | 22/08/11

      @Bev, the Family Court is full of nasty, bitter & twisted people using their children as pawns in their nasty, bitter & twisted fights.  The great majority of these people are heterosexual.  A teeny tiny minority are homosexual.

      According to the Chisom report about 5% of divorces wind up with the nasty fighting.  30% have some degree of fighting over children or property.  The rest accept the result (quite often reluctantly fathers) but get on with lives.  All the cases you see involving homosexual relationships (obviously some don’t involve public fighting) have been quite nasty because a third party is involved. Add to that the prevalence of DV in lesbian relationships (higher than hetro relationships) and you have the posibility of a big fight.

    • Commander says:

      02:25pm | 22/08/11

      Margaret Gray

      God, so are so boring with these same old arguments YAWN!

      No one cares that you call your Husband a “partner” you have a choice to call him your Husband or partner. Homosexual couples do not have that choice.

      If a person’s sexuality determines what they can or cannot do that is discrimination.

      Perhaps if we replaced homosexuality with Jew, Aboriginal or Chinese then it would be clearer that the argument a couple cannot be married due to their homosexuality is discriminatory.

      I don’t think anyone will argue that a person cannot be married due to their race. You cannot choose your race and you cannot choose your sexuality. The ability to do the same things as everyone else is what is required here.

      QED.

    • kate says:

      03:31pm | 22/08/11

      @Bev, if you want to be taken seriously you will need to:

      a) post credible links to support your assertions
      b) stop making stuff up. 

      Latest example:  you assert “DV in lesbian relationships [is] higher than hetro relationships”.  Wrong - in fact it’s about the same: http://www.musc.edu/vawprevention/lesbianrx/factsheet.shtml

    • Dan says:

      04:16pm | 22/08/11

      You know what Margaret, you can have this one.

      One third of all marriages will end in divorce, according to the ABS. Not most, but one in 3. Hardly a rock-solid institution.

      See: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features40Sep+2010

      I don’t think marriage is perfect, it’s not perfect involving straight couples, and I doubt it’d be perfect involving gay couples either. We don’t know, because we haven’t tried it.

      Even if marriage isn’t perfect in straight couples - why deny gay couples that same privilege? You barely touched any of my other arguments, I can’t understand why this is so fearsome a proposition?

      And thanks for the wonderfully petty “sic”. I had quite a chuckle.

    • Loxy says:

      04:33pm | 22/08/11

      Margaret Gray, perhaps you should look up the word logic in the dictionary as I can’t see anything logical about what you have come up with.
      How is gay marriage even remotely related to bigamy? Hetro couples get to commit to each other through marriage, gays want to do the same. Bigamy is another story altogether.
      Same sex couples, just like hetros, don’t need to marry, like hetros they WANT to marry. By the logic you have proposed on this one i.e. is just a word, piece of paper – no one, straight or gay, should be allowed to marry.
      Plenty of straight people have children without marrying and news flash, so do gays. Whether they can marry or not won’t have any impact on whether gays have children – they already do and will continue to do so.
      I have no knowledge of the case you mentioned, however I can’t imagine a court would do that if the father played a significant role in his child’s life and if the father fought the change in court.
      Either way, one case does not constitute logic.

    • Soren says:

      09:23pm | 22/08/11

      @Margaret Gray.

      Dear Margaret,

      I see your tired old “arguments” have been eviscerated by the authors above, but I also realise that you probably don’t see it that way, so there’s no point in going there.

      However, I do note your deep concern for the welfare of children of people you don’t know from Adam.  So, I am wondering how you reconcile this professed concern for the kiddies with the issue that is the crux of the original article. 

      I’ll quote it again here, because I think this important point has been overlooked by most people commenting, and I’d really like to hear YOUR opinion on it, Margaret…

      ——-
      “Gay people are also… people. Try it without the adjective. And the way they live, love, and define their relationships is, I’m sorry to say, not the slightest shred of your business.

      But the things you say and do still affect them, which is the real reason this is worth talking about. Gay teenagers attempt suicide at an estimated ten times the rate of straight kids. Katter has campaigned extensively on high suicide rates in regional areas, as evidence of city politicians letting country people down. This should be an issue close to his heart.

      As Tom Ballard’s video response to Devine suggested, every column like hers, every soundbite like Katter’s, is saying to those kids (and the peers who make their lives miserable) that no matter how hard they try, or how far they go, they will never quite be as good as ‘normal’ people. Their parenting, their relationships, their love, will always have a caveat attached. NQR. Slightly shop-soiled.”
      ——-

      So, Margaret, given that you profess deep concern for the welfare of children, and given that the welfare of gay children (of which there are many) is being deeply harmed by your lot’s egregious and poisonous carryings-on, I’d like to hear what you have to say for yourself.  Have you even ever thought about how your actions affect some children?  I’m guessing not.

      I mean, how many posts on the internet have you made decrying divorce, for instance?  How many little lists of “arguments” do you have on-hand to trot out on that issue, or is it just the gays you detest?

      Because, Margaret, I think you and your ilk really do have blood on your hands, because of your manifest inability to see gay people as, well… people!

      Have a good look at yourself.

    • Horse says:

      06:46am | 22/08/11

      Gay marriage will not affect heterosexual marriages: the notion of gay marriage just affects the way certain tribal groups talk about their perception of marriage.

      The whole ‘all-kids-need-a-father’ thing is paternalistic, and assumes all fathers are worth having.

      As far as Barnaby Joyce’s “the best protection for those girls is that they get themselves into a secure relationship with a loving husband” what sort of “getting” was Barnaby referring to, and what sort of “protection” did he feel they needed?

    • Bev says:

      10:04am | 22/08/11

      Gay marriage will not affect heterosexual marriages

      It will.  Any change to society’s accepted policies will always have an effect on that society it may be small or large but there will be an effect.
      There is a growing consensus that the two main contributors to the London riots were the encouragement of a consumer society by corporations and the encouragement of single motherhood.  In the area’s affected 4 out of 5 children grew up in fatherless homes.  A great majority of these households are unstable with a succession of boyfriends coming and going.  Unstable households do not produce stable adults.  Society seems to have picked that up as the marriage rate is increasing and the divorce rate is decreasing.  They are starting to regect the social experiment of the last 40 years of which gay marriage is the last of a long line of social changes which were not supposed to hurt the stability of society.  From an observational point of view many gay and lesbain relationships appear unstable.  The majority of poster lesbain relationships given as examples of great parenting and household stability have failed miserably a few years down the track.  I do not know how many homosexual couples stay together compared to hetrosexual relationships but I would suggest they are not as stable and are more likely to end in disaster.

      The whole ‘all-kids-need-a-father’ thing is paternalistic, and assumes all fathers are worth having.

      The fact is children do better with fathers in their life.  That a few fathers are bad does not change the fact.

      “the best protection for those girls is that they get themselves into a secure relationship with a loving husband”

      A new study in the US and Britian has shown that for children living with mum and dad children from married rather than defacto relationships do far better. It is not cut and dried as the more economically secure people are the more likely they are to marry and have stable households while the poor tend not to marry and have insecure/unstable relationships. Which accounts for some of the effects on children but not all.

    • RyaN says:

      10:32am | 22/08/11

      @Horse: So are you saying that no fathers are worth having?
      You seem to assume that because some fathers aren’t any good that children in homosexual marriages should be subjected to not having one.

    • David S says:

      11:09am | 22/08/11

      RyaN,
      There’s this thing called a rhetorical point. Many fathers are worth having, but certainly not all.  Which seems to be both your and Horse’s point.  A unity ticket.
      Let’s just get the perfectionistic argument out of the way.  Your argument seems to be that heterosexual alcoholics, drug addicts, philanderers, one-night-standers, and jailbirds are just fine as parents.  All it takes is a little bit of magic one evening across a crowded bar.
      But 2 gay people, who need to go to extraordinary lengths to parent a child through surrogacy, adoption or fostering - let the divine thunderbolts rain down!
      There’s just no evidence anyone can cite to say that the children of gay parents are less intelligent, well adjusted, and contributing members of society than than the mean.  So, until you have some hard facts, please keep your subjectation powder dry.

    • Horse says:

      11:54am | 22/08/11

      Ryan,
      No, I am not saying that!

    • RyaN says:

      12:18pm | 22/08/11

      @David S: Wow you sure launched into a barrel of assumptions there.

      Lets see now..
      “Your argument seems to be that heterosexual alcoholics, drug addicts, philanderers, one-night-standers, and jailbirds are just fine as parents”
      Not at all, but it appears that according to the logic being drawn by Horse, there is a parallel between those you mention above and “good” homosexual parents, we won’t even mention the bad ones that would mirror those which are inferred above.

      “There’s just no evidence anyone can cite to say that the children of gay parents are less intelligent, well adjusted, and contributing members of society than than the mean. “
      Please do point out firstly where I inferred this and secondly what this has to do with the point being discussed about fathers?

      Shall we just ignore the final outburst for the sake of civility and debate?

      This article takes a is apparently about logic and how its application to the subject at hand, I am debating the logic being used by Horse.

    • Merrelyn says:

      12:22pm | 22/08/11

      Agreed Horse.  You don’t want a gay marriage? Don’t get one.  As for the comment about us women needing the protecting of being with a man - what the…?  I’m a woman, I’m not gay and I feel absolutely no reason to have a man to feel safe & secure & protected.  I protect myself - again hunger, elements, crazy people, washing machines that fail, cars that break down… what exactly do I need protection from??  Crazy politicians that think they can legislate the peoples’ rights away? Perhaps.

    • RyaN says:

      12:23pm | 22/08/11

      @Horse: OK lets try to approach this from a different track then. Do you argue that it should be the default right of every child to have at least a chance at having a decent father?

    • kate says:

      03:40pm | 22/08/11

      @Bev:  “...many gay and lesbain relationships appear unstable.  The majority of poster lesbain relationships ... have failed ...  I do not know how many homosexual couples stay together ...  but I would suggest they are not as stable ...”

      C’mon Bev, you know what I’m going to say here.  “Appear”? “the Majority”  “I suggest”.  Must try harder.

    • Nathan says:

      01:27am | 23/08/11

      @ Bev
      I don’t think that you have thought through atleast one of your comments to say in relation to the London riots that ...” In the area’s affected 4 out of 5 children grew up in fatherless homes.  A great majority of these households are unstable with a succession of boyfriends coming and going.  Unstable households do not produce stable adults”... I think that the issue is single parent homes are the problem as you went onto to use the unstable comings and goings of boyfriends. If they are in a relationship this again is not an issue. You simply put argued against your point wake up will you already

    • Chris_D says:

      07:27am | 22/08/11

      You don’t order steak from the vegetarian menu, do you? 

      Draft a new set of marriage laws for the same-sex set.  Why is that so hard?

    • Huey says:

      09:30am | 22/08/11

      @ Chris D, draft anew set of marriage laws for everyone to use if they want to. Leave the old ones for traditional and religious types. Problem solved and everyone can stop whining. @ Geoff ..you forgot “shirtlifter”.

    • Ted P says:

      09:56am | 22/08/11

      Why? If they’re equal, why waste taxpayers’ money having a separate system? If they’re to be treated differently, then what’s your justification for the discrimination?

    • Chris_D says:

      10:46am | 22/08/11

      @Ted P, iIt always comes back to this same argument.  If all same-sex marriage advocates want, is to be able to actually get married in a legally binding, recognised union, then why is it necessary to change something that the hetero’s are happy with?  It’s the only real sticking point in progressing to the desired outcome for the same-sex marriage brigade. 

      They are not being treated differently, they are being treated the same, by having their own marriage act.  Effectively what you are saying is that heterosexual people would be discriminated against if the homosexuals had their own marriage act.  Hardly makes sense, does it.

    • marley says:

      11:12am | 22/08/11

      @Chris D - but what’s the point of having two pieces of legislation when one will do? If the definition is changed to include same-sex marriage, it doesn’t affect religious people, it doesn’t affect heterosexual marriages, and it saves a lot of paper having identical provisions drawn up.  We don’t have separate but identical migration acts for every nationality who wants to come to Australia;  why do we need to duplicate marriage acts?

    • Danny B says:

      11:28am | 22/08/11

      Chris_D

      Separate is never equal.  The very fact that there would be a separate set of laws would be enough to provide discrimination.

      All that needs to be done is to remove the wording added by the Howard Government a few years ago - that it’s between “a man and a woman” - change to something along the lines of “two consenting adults who are no closer related than cousins”.  No need for a separate act - just a simple change of wording, and it’s all sorted. 

      That’s all that needs to be done.

    • James1 says:

      11:41am | 22/08/11

      Chris, I am genuinely interested in why a heterosexual marriage will be changed by the existence of gay marriage.  Could you explain your reasoning on this for me?  I have never been able to get a straight answer to this question out of anyone who is opposed to gay marriage.

      My position is this: I am married to a woman.  If gay men can marry other men, this does not affect my own marriage in any sense.  I will still be married to a woman.

    • RyaN says:

      12:34pm | 22/08/11

      @Ted P: it wouldn’t be a separate system, there would be a legal title of having a civil union associated to all couples in the eyes of the law. The church and / or couples can then decide what they want to call it depending on their religious view.

    • Chris_D says:

      03:30pm | 22/08/11

      @marley, with all due respect, is the only argument you have against having separate act’s drawn up is it is a waste of paper?  My point is that if this is the main obstacle, then why not hurdle it in a single bound, buy an extra ream of A4 and let’s all move on.

    • Chris_D says:

      03:31pm | 22/08/11

      @Danny B, so you are telling us all that men and women are not equal?  Don’t let them feminazis hear you! 

      Funnily enough it was “the change of words” that seams to be the sticking point in the first place, and now you want them changed again, but with certain other restrictions (while providing equality, without discrimination), that include same-sex couples but exclude others,  and according to you that would be easier than just having another same-sex act?  Have another think about it.

    • Chris_D says:

      03:35pm | 22/08/11

      @James1, “Chris, I am genuinely interested in why a heterosexual marriage will be changed by the existence of gay marriage.  Could you explain your reasoning on this for me?”

      OK, how about you show me exactly where i said this?  I seem to attract a lot of people who claim I make statements they can’t produce (because I never did), and then they call me a coward and a liar for distancing myself from their claims. 

      I hope you aren’t one of them..

    • James1 says:

      04:54pm | 22/08/11

      Chris, to quote you: “If all same-sex marriage advocates want, is to be able to actually get married in a legally binding, recognised union, then why is it necessary to change something that the hetero’s are happy with?”

      The corollary of this is that heterosexuals would not be happy if the legal definition of marriage is changed, and I assumed that this would be as a result of the institution being changed in some way.  If it is going to be the same, then surely the way the heterosexuals feel about it is wholly irrelevant. The only conceivable logical conclusion is that the feelings of heterosexuals are relevant because the institution of heterosexual marriage will be different, at least as far as they are concerned.  Given that you have made many posts opposing gay marriage and that on of the reasons for your opposition seems to be that “hetero’s are happy with” it, I thought you might be able to shed some light on this perceived change and its implications for me. 

      Normally, people can’t answer this question because they haven’t thought through their arguments very well, not because they are cowards or liars.

      I hope you aren’t one of them…

      Otherwise, I have to assume that heterosexual marriage will not be changed by the existence of gay marriage, which leads me to wonder why it is relevant that heterosexuals are happy with marriage the way that it is.  In such a case, that argument is a non-sequitur.

    • Chris_D says:

      05:41pm | 22/08/11

      @James1, bloody hell mate, you’ve written a novel!  wink

      OK, without wanting to trawl over your whole post, I’ll just say this;  if we are agreed that the goal is to allow same-sex people to get married, then why bother fighting every step of the way to get the same result; a recognised marriage.

      My view is that if the biggest stumbling block is upsetting “happy” hetero’s, then why not take the path of least resistance and work around it?  That is what seems obviously logical to me.

      It seems you have drawn a lot of assumptions from my comments, not the least of which is, “Given that you have made many posts opposing gay marriage” 

      Again, please find me 1 single post of mine supporting this comment, without writing a novel to twist my words to support your comments..

    • Chris_D says:

      08:40pm | 22/08/11

      @James1, found anything yet?

      I know you won’t, but I can only assume you are either still looking, trying to work out a way to twist my comments or just aren’t prepared to face the fact that I never said it.

      That’s OK, I’m getting used to it now.  No hard feelings.

    • Geoff says:

      07:28am | 22/08/11

      Im a big supporter of gay marriage and equal rights.  But in this piece there was No need to use such disgusting and foul titles to make the point. poorly written. boo.

    • Emma says:

      07:30am | 22/08/11

      You don’t read article against gay marriage because there shouldn’t be any one day all you people who stand On your soap box and preach save the children save traditional marriage will have to explain to you kids and grand kids why you are filled with such hate and ignorance because whether you like it or not gay marriage will be legalized even if it has to wait till Gen Y take power but it will happen

    • jf says:

      07:39am | 22/08/11

      Personally I support gay marriage. It seems that the author of this article really doesn’t care either way and is more interested in using it as a platform to engage in puerile name-calling and simplistic anti-conservative sloganeering.

      Devine, Katter and Joyce all hold conviction views on gay marriage. Whilst I don’t agree with them, because their views are based on conviction it is possible that they may be changed.

      Why no mention of Gillard, Wong et al? They are the ones on Government. They are the ones that belong to the “progressive” party. Surely anyone genuinely interested in changing the law to allow gay marriage would spend their precious time and neurones challenging their view.

      If there is anyone that the gay lobby should hold in contempt it is not those that oppose gay marriage on principal, no matter how misguided they may feel that principal is, but those who claim to be progressive but who oppose gay marriage for base political convenience.

    • Ed says:

      08:47am | 22/08/11

      Good point… I think weather vanes like Gillard and Wong are the real problem.

    • Geoff Lemon says:

      09:39am | 22/08/11

      JF - not being part of the gay lobby, I wouldn’t know. But Devine, Katter, and Joyce were the three people who came out making supremely offensive and backward comments in a very public fashion last week, and this is responding to them.

      I agree with you one thousand percent about Labor’s stance on the issue - it’s the same crass pragmatism they’ve shown on a number of others. That’s the subject for another article, another day.

    • Chris says:

      06:00pm | 22/08/11

      Don’t you worry jf. That is where the fight for equality is at. Journalists take swipes at these conservative idiots because they are such easy targets. Those who seriously want to bring about this change are lobbying Labor to ensure they support gay marriage at their national conference.
      Wong has been pointed out time and time again for her silence on this issue until recently speaking out for it. I can’t speak for everyone in the gay community but Gillard has done her dash with me as far as I’m concerned, she would basically have to turn around and say sorry and that she supported it all along and was just playing politics. That’s not going to happen.

    • Joan Crawfish says:

      08:01am | 22/08/11

      Why would anyone want to get married, anyway?

    • amy says:

      12:02pm | 22/08/11

      I am a woman..so obviously its my number one goal in life

      to find a man to protect me from the gays, but I fear that all might collapse if gay marrage is allowed..then what will I do? Ill be helpless….I’ll catch the gay Virus

      ok in all honestly I agree with this article, I really dont understand the oposition to it..what will it change for you? NOTHING

      I feel in the end they can dress it up however they like..I just cant see any reason to opoas it

      and in the end I’d bet it will inevitibly happen

    • Steve says:

      08:02am | 22/08/11

      I read the above comments criticising the writer. Frankly, I thought the piece was a well written piece that took the sting out of many otherwise homophobic remarks. This particular homosexual thanks you for an amusing read over breakfast.

    • wearestardust says:

      08:04am | 22/08/11

      I’m straight, and married, and have been married for nearly 24 years.

      People in same-sex relationships getting married will not have the slightest negative practical, moral or pyschological effect on my relationship with my partner. 

      If anything, I feel that our relationship is devalued by the unfair privilege we have, and by the attempts by intolerant and bigoted people to appropriate our relationship for their political and religious ends.

      It’s not about the journalists, or the politics: it’s about people who love each other and want to try the adventure that is marriage.

    • Babe in the Woods says:

      08:05am | 22/08/11

      Well, I got a laugh out of this article.  A few eyebrow raising passages and this line about Bob Katter “wielding the Black Rubber Fist-Pump” mad eme laugh out loud.  I am sure this will now become serious discussion, and there will be lots of finger pointing and name calling, but I enjoyed it and found it well written, and damn it all funny!  Every now and then laughing at ones self is not such a bad thing.

    • Michael says:

      08:05am | 22/08/11

      It has occured to me in the last few days that what gay people are still asking for is acceptance from the community that they are part of.

      The question being asked at the moment is, can gay and lesbians have the same legal rights as heterosexuals and can it be part of the marriage act or at the very least legislated and recognised by a law.

      For many gay and lesbian people the marriage part itself may not be important at all, the scenario that unfolds before them is of utmost importance and tells them in no uncertain terms, there is still a long way to go before gay and lesbians are welcome in our society, not just tolerated.

      Think about it, you live in a society that keeps telling you that you are welcome and valued, yet if you ask for a inclusion where there is none, it is seen or felt by some as an imposition or an insult to their tolerance, how rude that you want full inclusion, will the inclusion we have graciously allowed not suffice?

    • Matt says:

      08:12am | 22/08/11

      Good article Geoff.  You’re right, it will have no affect on any heterosexual at all and there is no logical argument against it, yet equality is still something that needs to be fought for in 2011… 

      Always amusing to see the ‘but what about incest and polygamy’ crowd out and about thinking that equates to some sort of argument..

    • Chris_D says:

      10:55am | 22/08/11

      @Matt, is there any logical argument against same-sex marriage having their own act?

    • Matt says:

      12:36pm | 22/08/11

      Why have a sepearate one Chris?

    • Chris_D says:

      03:40pm | 22/08/11

      @Matt, I can see this will be a long and boring argument!  Why?/Why not? ad infinitum….

      OK, 1 reason is because it would pretty much end the debate and hetero’s and same-sex would both have recognised marriages under their respective marriage act, and the debate would be over.

      OK, now your turn.

    • Matt says:

      04:27pm | 22/08/11

      It could be long and drawn out, a much quicker way would be to change a word or two on the marriage act.  In your example, it would be over, but hetero’s would have one thing and homo’s another for exactly the same thing?  Where’s the logic in that?  Obviously some people - yourself included have issues with hetero’s and homo’s sharing… Really, that’s your problem, and shouldn’t be a factor in the argument. 

      Your reasoning, without being honest with yourself is ‘just because’.  Perhaps you should look at why you don’t want to share the one word…

    • Chris_D says:

      05:06pm | 22/08/11

      @Matt, at risk of just getting circular, your argument is contradictory.

      “It could be long and drawn out, a much quicker way would be to change a word or two on the marriage act.” It is long and drawn out, but my suggestion would end the debate quickly and easily.  Why make it longer and harder?
      ” In your example, it would be over, but hetero’s would have one thing and homo’s another for exactly the same thing?”  Actually, it would be 2 different things, one for hetero and one for homo, but each party gets exactly what they want. Why make it more difficult than that?

      ”  Where’s the logic in that?  Obviously some people - yourself included have issues with hetero’s and homo’s sharing… .”  FAIL.

      From what i am getting from your comments, you want a same-sex marriage act, but only if it’s the same as the hetero marriage act.

      “Really, that’s your problem, and shouldn’t be a factor in the argument”  This part is correct, but unfortunately it is directed at you and your comments.  See my opening comment.

    • Gavin says:

      05:13pm | 22/08/11

      Exactly, why have two if there is to be no difference?

    • Chris_D says:

      05:51pm | 22/08/11

      @Gavin, they are different, one for hetero, one for homo, but they provide the same end result, which is a legally recognised marriage.

      To keep harping back to, “why not just have one set” keeps the debate locked in limbo.  It makes no difference to me whether it moves forward or not, but it seems the same-sex advocates are the ones who keep bogging it down, while complaining that about the fact hetero’s have their own marriage act.

    • GlendaSings says:

      10:59pm | 22/08/11

      @Chris_D, ah yes, separate but equal.

      How about this: “can’t we just build a separate school for the black kids? It will be just as good as the white kids school. It’s not that those black kids aren’t as good as the white kids. It’s just that if we give them their own school, everyone will be happy”.

      Sounds pretty dreadful in today’s terms, doesn’t it. Separate but equal is a concept suggested by people who feel superior to another group of people but don’t want to appear bigoted. Not working.

    • MikeW says:

      12:18am | 23/08/11

      Having a parallel marriage act would require changing every other act that referenced one of them.
      South Africa famously had a system of parallel entitlements for whites and for blacks. What does history think of that one?
      Parts of the USA had segregated but theoretically equivalent schools, transport systems and social services for people of different colours. That worked out well didn’t it?

    • Matt says:

      08:02am | 23/08/11

      Chris D if you don’t understand equality that’s your problem.. Argue with someone else, I’m not interested in your opinion or homophobia - if you can’t admit it I will - there is no other reason for you to argue so strongly against equality.

    • Ben says:

      03:04pm | 23/08/11

      Chris_D, there is one very good reason for gays not having our own act: been there, done that, and it’s still illegal. The ACT tried it, but both Liberal and Labor federal governments overruled them, first because they said it was a back-door to allowing full marriage, and second because civil unions included a “ceremony”, and god forbid gays want to get up in front of their friends and family to validate their relationships the same way their straight brothers and sisters were allowed to.

      This is why we’re going for full marriage equality: because we tried it your way and it still wasn’t good enough. We tried being “separate but equal”, but conservatives still didn’t like it. So it’s time to stop trying to keep the heteros happy for the sake of it. You can suck it up and realise that me marrying my partner has absolutely no effect on you in the slightest.

    • Fred Phillips says:

      05:06pm | 23/08/11

      Chris_D: “To keep harping back to, “why not just have one set” keeps the debate locked in limbo.”

      That’s true, but what’s the answer to the question “why not just have one?” You haven’t given a sensible reason why there needs to be two. Unless there’s to be some qualitative difference in the rights attaching to gay marriage as opposed to hetero marriage, there’s no reason for two Acts. Also, it is infinitely easier to amend the Marriage Act than to creat a whole new Act for gay marriage.

    • Shane says:

      08:51am | 22/08/11

      While not really feeling the mood to get into a debate on marriage first thing Monday morning (I’ve only just gotten over my gay relationship getting serious on the weekend - we bought a new sofa), I must remark that Geoff Lemon = very funny. 

      Normally the polarising subject of gay marriage usually involves me getting angry at any person who even looks at me funny or who I suspect has taken positions in the vanguard of Devine’s army or Joyce’s church group or Katter’s rodeo (interesting side note - country boys enjoy a bit of a bucking more than what you think). 

      I may have dribbled coffee on myself while half drinking, half laughing at the comparison to international tastes in breakfast.  I may have considered ordering a GBLTI sandwich for lunch and I may also have secretly enjoyed the thought of seeing Joyce trapped in amber, preserved for future generations to drill into, extract DNA and create a whole zoo of Joyce’s for public amusement.

      Love or hate the homos, you’ve gotta admit this was a wonderful piece of writing.  If you disagree, well… you’re not really quite good enough to be here are you?

    • Richard the Lionheart says:

      09:03am | 22/08/11

      Sometimes I wonder why homosexuals want to follow everyone else down the aisle. I loved the diversity and outrageous difference in the gays of old. They thumbed their noses and sent up straight institutions with great wit, glee and fun. It was almost a badge of honour. Now it seem they want to join their old enemy in the drab suburbs and even school yards. Many yearn for the old colourful wicked days pertaining to alternative lifestyles. Nevertheless, If they want to marry, so they should. It is a social recognition of status. I see a lot of work for lawyers in the future.

    • Anna C says:

      12:35pm | 22/08/11

      “Nevertheless, If they want to marry, so they should ...I see a lot of work for lawyers in the future.”

      More work for lawyers? Surely that’s reason enough to deny gay people the right to marrry? More bloody lawyers ... like that’s all we need.

    • Outraged says:

      09:27pm | 22/08/11

      Amen Richard!

      I am on old-school gay man who misses when Mardi Gras was full of hairy men dressed in wedding dresses running down the street, laughing…mocking the oppressive institution that is Marriage!

      Nowadays, the parade is full of sour-faced “Activists” shuffling down the street with placards demanding “Marriage”...there is no sense of humour anymore…it is all very serious and self-indulgent…First World Problems!

      I don’t wanna be “just like Straight People”! I like being subversive and different!

    • Blazes says:

      09:09am | 22/08/11

      This article is just silly and puerile. It doesn’t even attempt to put a half decent case for gay marriage. The burden of proof is on the people who are proposing the change, and Geoff has failed miserably.

      The questions is: should society give a special status to a sexual relationship between a man and a woman through the definition of mariage? The answer to me is obvious: yes. The physical naure of heterosexual relationships is such that they can make a unique contribution to society, thourgh procreation and the rearing of children.

      On the practical side of the debate, the ideal for a child is to be raised b his/her biological parents where possible. There are many tragic instances where this does/can not happen, but we should do our best to encourage this, and that is what marriage does. Society would be worse off if this ideal is further weakened by things such as gay marriage.

    • Amy says:

      09:09am | 22/08/11

      LOVE IT GEOFF!! The breakfast part is my favorite, perfectly summing up how I feel! You like bacon, I like fruit, it’s all breakfast so eat your own and get over it. The fact that people think me eating fruit will turn their bacon into non-breakfast is f***ing stupid. You’ve cheered up my day smile

    • Jim says:

      09:20am | 22/08/11

      Crikey Geoff…you really are an angry little man aren’t you?! Two Punch pieces full of vitreol and a layer of smug cleverness that only you get…

      Most people couldn’t care one way or another what happens on the gay front, and I think that scares the gay community the most. They really should get over themselves and stop trying to turn everything into some headline about homophobia.

    • fairsfair says:

      09:28am | 22/08/11

      This article is terrible and if it is the road that spokespersons for the gay community want to go down, well I say good luck to them. Like Jf in the comments above, I support Gay Marriage - but I can see how articles such as this one can have a detrimental effect to the cause.

      I am puzzled by a lot of gay people’s inability to get over the fact that they themselves are gay. Perhaps they are the ones who have the biggest issue with it. Why must it define a person? For instance, I was watching “The Voice” yesterday and there were two gay men auditioning. All other auditionees stated their name and the state they were from. These two men announced their name and that they were gay - like it was the biggest thing about them. No, it is not. Please get used to the fact that not as many people care as you may think.

    • Danny B says:

      11:34am | 22/08/11

      fairsfair,

      Just one quick question - how do you know there were only two gay men auditioning?  Seems to me they were the only two auditioinees who announced they were gay - how many were but didn’t?

    • fairsfair says:

      12:13pm | 22/08/11

      Nil of either sex announced they were heterosexual.

    • Bev says:

      12:46pm | 22/08/11

      You get the impression that some homosexuals think they are morally superior to the rest of us.  Hardly true.

    • AdamC says:

      02:16pm | 22/08/11

      Fairs, I agree, a totally shocking article. I am pretty much waiting to be converted on the gay marriage topic and these articles are such a turn off. (Sadly, I think the author, at times, thought he was being witty.)

      On the subject of why gays sometimes trumpet their gayness more than one thinks justifiable, I think you’ll find that it has something to do with keeping it a secret for so long while growing up. Straight people often don’t realise that gays, when young, often feel a strong sense of difference from everyone else - sometimes without even really understanding what that difference is until much later.

      Then when this sense of difference gets a name, they just wanna shout it from the rooftops! It’s a bit like that constant cringe-inducing use of the word ‘pride’. I am not a self-loathing gay, but I don’t see why I should be ‘proud’ to be gay. I mean, should straight people be ashamed to be straight? Or should they be proud too? And why don’t we just be happy with ourselves instead?

    • fairsfair says:

      04:49pm | 22/08/11

      As always Adam - eHi5.

      There are exceptions to every rule, but I get your drift. A friend of mine who was moving on the weekend to New Farm knew he was gay when he was 5 (I struggle with that because at five I don’t think I had any sexual anything, let alone knew I was heterosexual). His FB status update was “weather horrid. worst conditions for moving ever. god must hate fags. lol”. Excuse me while I don’t laugh out loud.

      I don’t understand the shouting from the roof tops bit I must say and the embracing of the horrid words. Just like the N word - it is not right and taking “ownership” is a big giant fail in my book, like this article. Its not satire.

      If something made you feel so bad about yourself/confused about being different for so long, once you realised what it was, it was OK and you realised society was generally accepting of it, why can’t you move on and just live your life?

      I am not proud of my heterosexualality and I am not ashamed of another friend’s homosexuality. I don’t think about it at all quite frankly. He never mentions it. I never mention anything. He refers to his partner as the husband. and I think that is nice, but he is continually embarassed by who he terms the “raging homos” who ruin it for him and his partner. They just want to be left alone to be together and find the whole ‘gay culture’ too much to take. I am not sure as I don’t live in that world, but there seems to be a lot of pressure on gay people to be flag waving so to speak. It must be exhausting when you just want to live your bloody life.

    • GlendaSings says:

      11:12pm | 22/08/11

      @fairs fair, I agree with you about people who see being gay as their defining feature. I find it a bit tiresome, and I’m gay.

      However, we all know people who are really into something and bang on about it endlessly. I talk about singing all the time. I have a couple of friends who are mad about healing crystals, another couple who are rabid environmentalists, one whose husband talks about nothing but cars, and one who thinks that her child is the only one to walk the earth. you get people who are equally obsessed by religion, guns and politics.

      Some people are just into something in particular, and if you’ve spent your whole life feeling like you have to hide and then you’re released, you’re bound to get a bit excited.

      Keep in mind too that people on reality TV shows are often wound up by producers looking to create controversial viewing. They got you!

    • Sam says:

      01:29am | 23/08/11

      Just want to shed some light on this point from my perspective.

      I agree with your point @fairs about being slightly embarrassed by somewhat over-the-top people who rage about the pride and stuff, it’s not me at all, and I don’t like how I often feel stereotyped because of that behaviour. It’s not wrong, however, and people should be able to express themselves as they feel they want to.
      However, in response to the auditioning point:
      Even though many heterosexual people think that homosexuality is accepted in society, in fact it is not. It’s like “yeh I’m supportive of homosexuality, just not the gayness”.
      It’s not always the overt stuff (like getting faggot yelled at you in the street by strangers), but just the small things, like if two straight guys get a little bit close in a drunken facebook photo, people will comment on how gay it seems. Or everyone sniggering and secretly laughing at the flamboyant dancer guy on Australia’s Got Talent. Or TV ads where it’s all about guys and girls and being successful and getting expensive cars. Or TV shows where the gay couple are always so stereotypical and socially awkward and not really in the main group but only peripheral. Or the whole thing about having to ‘come out’ which is so traumatising. There are many many people I know who are too scared to ell their parents they are gay because of a genuine fear of being booted out of their home.
      I ‘came out’ (I hate even having to say that phrase) nearly a whole year ago, but my auntie only found out a few days ago when I and my boyfriend decided to put our relationship on facebook (he was nervous about it because when he ‘came out’ about eighteen months ago he lost all his friends from his home, people abused him publicly and on facebook and he was forced to move out of his regional town to start a new life). The first thing my auntie said was “don’t worry we still love you” (as though I am worried - talk about being late to the party) and then “when are we going shopping?”. I hate shopping. I could go on, but I’m sure you understand the point.

      For this reason, I can understand why some people feel they need to say they are gay or whatever because if you show that you are not ashamed of it, it really does stop people from doing the sniggering and name-calling.

    • fairsfair says:

      09:14am | 23/08/11

      Thank you Glenda and Sam. That certainly explains a lot and I guess it is fine for me to say those things, never having encountered the daily issues.

      When one of my really close friends came out to me (he actually said that he was frightened to say it to me, which I was sorry to hear) I was relieved for him. I had always known, I didn’t care and quite frankly, I was jealous. And I told him that at the time. Jealous sounds stupid, but it is because we all have things in our life that stop us being the people we want to be and achieving the things that we want in life. My issue is my self esteem I have none. Zero. Zip. I wish it was as simple for me as it was for him. All he had to do was come out to the world and he is liberated to be who he wants (he has created a life for himself that allows that). I am jealous of that.

      I would love to know what the thing is in my own mind that is stopping me. What I am certan of however is that if/when I finally work out what it is, people will not give a shit, nor want to hear it at every opportunity. People won’t want to hear at BBQs, “Hi my name is fairsfair and I am a reformed fatty but still have the fat girl mindset, so please dont comment on my appearance even if you do like my hair”. I know that sounds extreme, but I have been to BBQs where a man has come up to me and said “Hi, my name is Brian and I’m not hitting on you or anything, I am gay”. WTF?

      So I certainly take on board what you say and can see where it is coming from, but I still think that the vocalisation of something (and almost the encouragement of doing so by the “ragers”) that nobody really wants to hear about (be it straight, gay, bi or beast), is not helping to achieve the uniform acceptance.

    • Sam says:

      12:02pm | 23/08/11

      I agree. I can understand why many homophobic people claim that the gays are taking over and that the ‘ragers’ are shoving it down everyone’s throats, because that’s the overwhelming public image of homosexuality.

      I have my own theories about how the inability of same-sex couples to get married (or whatever you want to call it) in Australia leads to many of the stereotypical issues within the ‘gay community’ (again a term I don’t like, there is no one community or person who speaks for everyone, just as there is no ‘straight community’) like promiscuity, STIs, ‘ragingness’ etc, as there is no concept of looking forward to a normal life.

      Once we have acceptance and welcoming and legal and social equality, then people (especially straight people) will realise that actually gay people are fine with being gay.
      At the moment, because it’s still something to hide from society, everyone secretly knows it’s better to be straight. And that’s the sad thing.

      Finally, to refer back to your original post @fairs, you might consider looking at it from this perspective:

      “I am puzzled by a lot of gay people’s inability to get over the fact that they themselves are gay. Perhaps they are the ones who have the biggest issue with it. Why must it define a person?”

      Actually straight people have this phenomenon too. Especially guys. If you are not a guy you might not understand so much, but straight people and their ‘straightness’ occupies their entire thought processes. It’s always about the tits and the whatevers and did you get laid on the weekend and being all macho on footy trips and making gay jibes at their other straight mates and stop press check the talent at 3 o’clock. It really does get over the top - it’s like straight (guys especially) people need to keep reminding everyone how straight they are. The equivalent for a gay man is to constantly talk about how much he likes the d**k or how many other guys he’s slept with etc etc. However that makes straight people uncomfortable because they can’t relate to it, so in order to moderate it, people just prefer to say “I’m gay”.

      After I came out, girls started to talk about this kind of stuff around me as well, which was weird, and so I know that straight girls have their straightness on the brain too.

      Why shouldn’t the person you love define who you are?

      Thanks for this interesting discussion.

    • fairsfair says:

      04:54pm | 23/08/11

      Actually good point Sam - In terms of gay men, I think as a female, what trips me the most is because knowing that someone is gay means that they are not in the slightest interested in you. Because of that you tend to forget that they are still boys. And your are quite spot on about the behaviour of the majority of heterosexual males - its just a big show really (and that is not derogatory - women do it with their hair and appearance and walk etc).

      I forget that those same testosterone driven behaviours exist in the person, simply because they are not being directed at me. Out of sight out of mind if you will. 

      Interesting, I have never thought about it like that. Thanks to you too.

    • Simon J Green says:

      09:32am | 22/08/11

      Great article, Geoff. Liked the light-hearted romp around the gaypocalypse, loved the summary of every argument one could have against the ‘against’ camp. Bravo, sir. Good writing. Passionate without getting carried away.

    • jimbo says:

      09:42am | 22/08/11

      Please, when will this debate end.  Can we move on to something which is actually important?

    • Lapun says:

      10:33am | 22/08/11

      Well said Jimbo!  The irony of this whole debate (if one can call it that) is that it is taking place when vast numbers of heterosexuals are foregoing marriage themselves in favour of “partnerships”.  Civil laws recognise the partnerships as binding relationships and it is hard to understand what the hell this is all about!

    • Shane says:

      10:51am | 22/08/11

      It’s pretty important if you want to get married mate.  When someone tells you you’re not allowed to get married because you’re not quite normal enough, it tends to press buttons.

    • MikeW says:

      01:04am | 24/08/11

      Lapun wrote:  “Civil laws recognise the partnerships as binding relationships and it is hard to understand what the hell this is all about!”

      American Blacks still got to ride on the bus even if they had to sit up the back. That’s what you’re saying. South Africans were similarly denied full status with the con act of separate but equal legislation.

      It is important in many ways, and not just because of the special status accorded couples in most societies, and because deliberately creating a subclass has wounding effects on those isolated thus (gay couples and their children)

      Current legislation prevents Australians having same-sex marriages in other countries because the federal government will not release supporting documents in these cases. This has enormous implications because the external partner in such a relationship may be expelled from the country or not qualify for various social benefits tied to marriage.

    • the apologist says:

      09:44am | 22/08/11

      “Which brings us to the crux of the whole issue – the perplexing question of why anyone would need to oppose it in the first place.”

      The historical basis for opposing gay marriage was the Christian faith of western civilisation. Faith in God, and belief in His revealed moral standards provided the basis. This is why present day counter arguments (some of which, in fairness, you have given coverage of towards the end of your article) are so weak. People are afraid to stand on the historical ground that their position is fundamentally based upon. Why do you think the Australian Christian Lobby was at the heart of the recent rally?

      The Biblically revealed standard that homosexuality is morally wrong stands up to common sense as well as being an objectively right standard in itself. Without it, we are left to mere relativism with no legitimate concept of ethics upon which to base anything.

      When it comes to this issue of homosexuality, for example, you simply cannot deny that once gay marriage is accepted formally (it’s been on the way to being accepted for some time due to the faith shift in western society from Christianity to humanism), there are no logical grounds on which to discriminate anyone based on sexual preferences. Sure, you might say that the act of beastiality or peadophilia is wrong based on consensual relations (as many attempt to do), but you cannot discriminate against their desires and say they are wrong. They can’t help it after all (so your argument goes if you are pro-homosexual). It’s a slippery slope, and there’s no reason why the sands of morality won’t continue to shift in coming decades if we persist with our present direction.

      Our biological design presents the wisdom of the Creator in His design for what sex should be.

      The functioning of the family unit as the building block of healthy societies testifies to the wisdom of the family design. Stable healthy individuals are much more likely to arise from circumstances where marriage between a man and a woman is honoured (primarily between the two marrying - but also protected in legislation) - and there has been stacks of research to back this up.

      But ultimately, the argument stands on our vioation of God Himself. He created us, and we are responsible for our rebellion against His revealed will. We must honour Him (which is in our best interests anyway).

      The fundamental problem (with homosexuality or any other range of issues) is sin. We are a race that has turned its back on it’s Creator and we need to be restored to Him so that our lives and our world can be saved from the mess that it’s in.

    • fml says:

      10:20am | 22/08/11

      So you are saying, prove god doesnt exist then gay marriage wont be immoral?

    • Cassy says:

      10:35am | 22/08/11

      “We are a race that has turned its back on it’s Creator and we need to be restored to Him so that our lives and our world can be saved from the mess that it’s in.”

      Of course—the world is in turmoil solely because of those who do not believe in the Christian God. Cue eye-roll.

    • Shane says:

      10:53am | 22/08/11

      Or maybe I just don’t want to explain that I’ve been with my boyfriend (a term generally used for shorter long term relationships, usually before getting married ironically) for 10 years every time I’m introduced to someone new. 

      Just sayin…

    • K. Grant says:

      11:02am | 22/08/11

      Do you think that He would like us to round up all the homosexuals, athiests, adulterous women etc and stone them to death?  The Old Testament would appear to sanction such an action.

    • gammon says:

      11:11am | 22/08/11

      I hope you are also crusading against eating meat on Fridays, mixing fabrics, haircuts, tattoos and piercings then. After all, they’re all banned by Leviticus, the same book in the Bible that comments on homosexuality. Of course, not one of them is banned or even mentioned elsewhere, in the 65 other books.

      Apparently cherry picking can be done all year round, unlike picking cherries…

    • the apologist says:

      11:43am | 22/08/11

      @fml: well, that’s one way of attempting a counter argument to what I said.
      @K. Grant: Yes and no. Allow me to explain if you would be so kind. The Bible makes it clear that the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23). Since all have sinned (Rom 3:23), all deserve death. On the basic level, sin is sin – whatever form it takes (adultery, homosexuality, apostasy, theft, murder, etc), and we’re all guilty of it. From that perspective, we all deserve death – capital punishment is just a limited reflection in the now of what faces us in eternity when we must give an account for the wrong we’ve done. I deserve it judgment. You deserve it. We all do. The Old Testament law recognised guilt in terms of here and now punishments for sin and crime.
      Capital punishment is a limited temporal reflection of that ultimate judgment. From that perspective, yes it should be instituted in society in accord with God’s revealed moral standards; but no, saying that we should round up every sinner and execute them is to go beyond the limited means of the state as a ‘policeman’ in society. The principle of testing for a crime in court is important, and any guilt in the civil sense must be established on that basis. Stoning was the cultural form of the execution at the time when Old Testament law was given – the principle of capital punishment is the important thing, not the form (i.e. lethal injection is fine). When people commit crimes – I believe that they should be tried, and if found guilty they should be convicted.
      Capital punishment recognises how serious and terrible an offence truly is, unlike much of today’s law (for example, they are struggling to put the tyrant who recently rampaged the Norway away for any more than 23 years). Imprisonment robs the taxpayer to give the guilty a work free life; it leaves criminal elements in society free to thrive rather than removing them; it is a soft deterrent for other would be criminals; it does not truly execute justice (eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth).
      The wonder of the Christian gospel of course is that though we are all ultimately guilty, God has made a way – by sending His own Son into the world – for us to be legally cleared of our crimes, forgiven and restored to fellowship and relationship with Him. Our sin is terrible, but His grace is greater than our sin. His grace operates on a level above civil punishment. While a murderer may deserve capital punishment, still he can receive forgiveness for His sin.

    • P. Darvio says:

      11:50am | 22/08/11

      Christian BIBLE LAW actually says Gays should be killed. All good Christians, such as yourself, would know this.

      Christian BIBLE LAW also says the following people should be killed.

      Non-Believers
      Children who misbehave
      Wizards (this includes all Harry Potter fans - so more child killing)
      Witches
      Pigs - because Fictional Jesus Person (FJP) killed them

      Yes let’s base our ethics and morals on ancient Religious Texts, written by Goat Herders, who lived in tents 3000 years ago who, under the “instruction” of the Celestial North Koran Style Dictator, wrote books of torture, rape, murder and Genocide.

      No wonder humanity is in such deep trouble.

      But don’t worry FJP loves you….m’mmm that sounds quite…well…..gay…..

    • the apologist says:

      12:04pm | 22/08/11

      @gammon: actually, homosexuality is also condemned in Romans 1.
      No I’m not lobbying against tattoos, piercings, mixing fabrics, haircuts, eating meat, etc. To my knowledge, few of those had any civil sanctions associated with them and were matters between God and each individual. Not to mention that some conditions of the Old Testament law have now been fulfilled in the new (so yes, they are still applicable but in a different form – namely by being fulfilled in Jesus Christ). For example, the entire sacrificial animal system is no longer applicable as it pointed to the sacrifice of Christ for sins (read the book Hebrews and you’ll see this clearly). Studying the differences and continuity between the Old and New Covenants is quite an involved area of study.

    • David says:

      12:14pm | 22/08/11

      The idea that our modern day ideas of morality is based on the bible is a fallacy. Morality is a man made phenomenon that is created by humanity. Notwithstanding the fact that the bible was written by a bunch of unenlightened men living in the dark ages, any attempts extract a moral code from the bible result in cherry picking the good bits and rationalising away the bad bits and ultimately it is still humanity that determines which parts of the bible are decent enough to include in our idea of morality. If we took the bible as a whole as a complete guide to morality, we would still be stoning gays to death, burning witches and forcing rape victims to marry their attackers.

    • gammon says:

      12:14pm | 22/08/11

      It sure is wonderful how we we’ve all been automatically condemned because someone ate an apple thousands of years ago, but he’s agreed to wipe the slate clean of things we haven’t done if we’ll just worship him the proper way.

      If his grace is so awesome that it transcends sin, why doesn’t he just use it to forgive us all right now, then we can all be best buddies for ever? Oh, that’s right, he needs his daily dose of bowing and scraping before he can think about doing that.

      This wonderful gospel sounds exactly like someone took “I messed up. My bad.” ‘No worries man, it might take a while to get fully over it, but I won’t hold it against you. We’re all good now.” and then did the most amazing job of padding in history.

    • the apologist says:

      12:27pm | 22/08/11

      @P. Darvio:

      Well P, I don’t claim the title of being a ‘good Christian’ but yes, the Bible says that the act of homosexual sex between two men is a crime punishable by death. Note that this is distinct from homosexual attraction.

      I might ask you for a reference where it says non-believers are to be killed, I don’t recall seeing anywhere that puts it as bluntly or unqualified as that. In fact, there were plenty of laws teaching how God’s people should treat the alien from another land. You’re hardly going to invite him in for a meal and take him to court for capital punishment the next day now are you? It’s not as simple as you have falsely represented it.

      As for disobedient children – it’s more like delinquent, unrepentant hardened rebellious, godless hoodlum teenagers. And it’s at the bequest of the parents to bring such a hard case before a tribunal. That’s an immense safe guard in itself – no healthy parent would want to do such a thing to their own child, so the case in question is surely one of the most dire circumstances. Imagine what it would take to drive a parent to do that to their own son?

      Wizards and witches didn’t include Harry Potter fans. It was talking about mediums and people who mess with demonic forces – basically exercising and seeking power outside of and in rebellion to God.

      Pigs aren’t people (seeing as how you qualified it as the Bible says the following ‘people’ should be killed), and the Bible doesn’t claim that they should be killed.

      Any more baseless accusations?

      Incidentally, the historical veracity of the New Testament and the historical Jesus is not questioned by serious historians. The New Testament scriptures, for example, eclipse by the thousands authentic, verifiable copies from numerous sources confirming its accuracy. It is light-years ahead of any other historical document in terms of historical veracity.

    • HappyCynic says:

      12:45pm | 22/08/11

      @the apologist

      Clearly your knowledge of the Old Testament is very limited and most likely wrong.  Mixing fabrics and mixing meat with milk etc all had civil sanctions.  Yes they were between G-d and the individual in question but so too is homosexuality.

      Besides according to some eminent biblical scholars the passages like Romans and Leviticus that you and other bigots commonly cite as proof that homosexuality is wrong do not take into account the types of homosexual relationships that exist today and may not even address homosexuals at all but may in fact ban heterosexuals from engaging in homosexual acts, not vice versa.

      Besides not everyone in society is Christian therefore not everyone has to follow your bible and not everyone has to follow your narrow definition of your bible.  Religion and the practice of it is highly individualistic, let G-d decide who’s right and wrong since He’s the only one qualified to do so and keep your religion out of other people’s private lives.

    • James1 says:

      01:33pm | 22/08/11

      Biblical law sounds a lot like Sharia law to me.  Criminalising some of what the Bible defines as sin would be the first step towards theocracy.

    • the apologist says:

      02:00pm | 22/08/11

      @Happy Cynic: If homosexuality was just between God and the individual, why did homosexual sex demand the intervention of civil authorities via capital punishment? It was a civil crime with civil sanctions. Please back up your claim that e.g. fabrics & meat and milk had civil sanctions. Leviticus 19:19, for example, simply says that the Lord told the people not to wear mixed fabric garments. There was no indication that this was to be policed by anyone or that any punishment should be exacted. Disobedience was a matter between the individual and the Lord.
      There is nothing to suggest in either of the passages that the ban is for heterosexuals committing homosexual acts. That is purely twisting the plain meaning of the text. Leviticus makes an unqualified statement that homosexual sex is an abomination; and Romans gives no indication whatsoever that the interpretation you suggest is what the text says. If you think otherwise, then by all means, point out where in the text such a distinction can be made.
      I never said everyone has to follow me, and I’m certainly not attempting to invade anyone’s private religious life. I passionately believe in individual responsibility. Nonetheless, I reserve the right to speak.
      The fact that God made us all means that we are responsible to Him regardless of our opinion of Him. God will decide who is right and wrong (and from that perspective, I don’t presume to judge you or anyone), but He has already revealed quite a bit about what He thinks. To fly in the face against what He has said is neither right nor safe. Religion is not individualistic in the sense that God has outlined the way to live – if we disobey Him in that saying that, you were going by your own religion will not hold up in the end.

    • the apologist says:

      02:11pm | 22/08/11

      @James1:
      You’ve actually picked up on something important that many Christians don’t seem to realise. The Biblical picture of theocracy is not as limited as Sharia law. God is proclaimed Lord over all of creation, and all men, women children and nation is obliged under His rule to honour and obey Him. To do less is simple rebellion.
      I’m not a student of Sharia, but from what I have read there are both similarities and significant discontinuities. I know for certain that the fundamental tenets of both Christianity and Islam are significantly different on a fundamental level – which presents a problem for Islam as it claims continuity with Christianity.
      In terms of political systems, Christianity has political implications (e.g. governments are required to honour God), but it is not fundamentally political. This is what Christ meant when He said that His Kingdom was not of this world, otherwise His disciples would have fought for it (John 18:36). Unlike in the Old Testament, God’s Kingdom is no longer directly associated with one culture. Islam, on the other hand, has distinct and deliberate aggressive political implications which are clearly outlined in their doctrine of Jihad.

    • john says:

      09:45am | 22/08/11

      The real issue isn’t gay marriage, carbon tax, labor or liberal, climate change or not, wars, or anything else for that matter.

      The real problem is that people have stopped listening & by and large have dis-engaged, regardless of gender,race,orientation etc.

      Similar to facebook fatigue perhaps.

    • Gordy says:

      10:00am | 22/08/11

      I think the problem people have with gay marriage is that if it’s legalised it will have to be presented to school kids as a completely normal option for them - this may lead to some kids mistakenly thinking they’re gay who otherwise it would never have crossed their minds - many adults make this mistake as well.

      Also, as you see with the Bert and Ernie gay marriage petition, gay activists hope to change the hearts and minds of the young, not just the law.

      A further problem is that gay marriage will lead to a boom in gay parenting. They’ll be thousands more kids denied a mother or father, when these kids learn that they were denied a mother or father by choice, it could result in trust issues.

      But, I guess we’ll find out in 20-30 years as the gay juggernaut rolls on.

    • Cassy says:

      10:47am | 22/08/11

      Gordy, legalising gay marriage does not mean homosexuality will all of a sudden ‘become a choice’ for school kids. You either are gay, or you aren’t. Just because gay marriage might be legalised doesn’t mean kids will be forced to ‘become’ gay. That’s ridiculous. It simply means that if they grow older and realise that they aren’t heterosexual, it’s not the end of the world. They’ll still be an included, valued and welcome part of society, unlike many kids now who could feel ostracised by coming out as gay because of the unnecessary prejudice that still exists.

      Regarding the ‘boom in gay parenting’ as you so call it - it isn’t about being ‘denied’ a mother or a father. If the child is loved and cared for by their parents (or parent, in the case of single parents, regardless of sexuality) then the child will grow up just fine.

    • Bev says:

      11:35am | 22/08/11

      Cassy says:10:47am | 22/08/11
      Regarding the ‘boom in gay parenting’ as you so call it - it isn’t about being ‘denied’ a mother or a father. If the child is loved and cared for by their parents (or parent, in the case of single parents, regardless of sexuality) then the child will grow up just fine.

      Commenters here have pointed at only one study that says thats true for homosexual couples.  There a very large number of studies showing that married mum and dad are best for children and other arrangements not as good. Other arrangements can produce fine adults but are less likely to.

    • Zaf says:

      11:49am | 22/08/11

      [this may lead to some kids mistakenly thinking they’re gay who otherwise it would never have crossed their minds - many adults make this mistake as well.]

      Tell us more about this, please.

      [A further problem is that gay marriage will lead to a boom in gay parenting. They’ll be thousands more kids denied a mother or father, when these kids learn that they were denied a mother or father by choice, it could result in trust issues.]

      But THOSE kids wouldn’t EXIST without the gay parenting thing.  It’s not like they had another option.

      [But, I guess we’ll find out in 20-30 years as the gay juggernaut rolls on.
      gay JUGGERNAUT?]

      Are you calling gay people fat?  Them’s fighting words, maaaaaaaate!

    • Slothy says:

      11:53am | 22/08/11

      Gordy: “this may lead to some kids mistakenly thinking they’re gay who otherwise it would never have crossed their minds”

      How are you supposed to ‘mistakenly’ think you’re gay? Do you worry that you ‘mistakenly’ think you’re straight because you were told that straightness was a completely normal option for you?

      I don’t care about Bert and Ernie, but showing children normal, healthy gay relationships isn’t magically going to turn them gay. Their desire to have same-sex relationships will take care of that. It might however, show those that are gay that their desires are valid and normal and so save them from decades of doubt and self-hatred as they wonder what is wrong with them and why they don’t feel like the ‘normal’ people they are surrounded by. Considering the homosexual suicide rate, I think that minimising those feelings of self-hatred can only be a good thing.

      As to your children of gay parents argument: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2010/06/07/peds.2009-3153.full.pdf+html The American Academy of Paediatrics concludes that “Adolescents who have been reared in lesbian-mother
      families since birth demonstrate healthy psychological adjustment.”

      Or you can download the South Australian Parliamentary Social Development Committee’s inquiry in to Same-sex parenting from here: http://www.parliament.sa.gov.au/Committees/Pages/Committees.aspx?CId=182 (it’s under documents/completed inquiries) which concludes that “The Committee heard no persuasive evidence that children are disadvantaged by being raised by same-sex parents.”

    • kate says:

      12:18pm | 22/08/11

      @Bev , you are concerned that there is “only one study” that shows kids brought up by gay & lesbian parents “grow up just fine”.

      Here, go for your life:  http://www.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/parenting.aspx.

      In summary, the number of peer-reviewed, reputable, methodologically sound studies which prove gay parents are bad:  ZERO.
      The number of peer-reviewed, reputable, methodologically sound studies which prove that: 
      1. there is NO scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation;

      2. lesbian and gay parents are AS LIKELY AS heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children;

      3. there is NO empirical evidence of deficits in the development of children raised in a lesbian or gay household.

      Twenty-seven.

      In summary - don’t panic, the kids are all right.  Really.

    • Gordy says:

      01:02pm | 22/08/11

      @ Zaf, no sir, I wasn’t saying gays are overweight. Gay people take very good care of themselves actually.

      ‘Juggernaut’ was referring to the fact that the gay movement is simply the most well-organised, united, wealthy and powerful political operation we’ve seen in generations and it’s unstoppable.

      @ Slothy, no I was referring to the fact that in a population there will be more people who’ve had a gay experience than there are gay people - so it’s unlikely that all gay people are born gay, i.e. some change depending on their social environment, the standards of which are influenced by govt. policies.

      A study might say a kid is successful, but studies can never measure what ifs, i.e. would the kid have been more successful if he had a ma and pa? Just my two cents. And gay people are usually very nice, nothing against them. The world needs gay people!

    • Slothy says:

      01:41pm | 22/08/11

      Gordy - what stats are you using for your assertion that there are more people who have had gay experiences than there are gay people? And how doesit classify bisexuals? Or threesomes?

      And if the world needs more gay people, than surely it’s not a problem that gay marriage is presented to kids as a completely normal option?

      And while studies can’t prove counterfactuals for an individual, you can use a control group compare populations against each other, which is what many of the 26 studies considered in the SA Parliament report do to reach their conclusion that children are not harmed by same-sex parenting.

    • Bev says:

      01:42pm | 22/08/11

      kate says:12:18pm | 22/08/11

      In the 70’s and 80’s feminist scholars and other social engineering types produced many studies/papers purporting to show that children from single mother families did OK.  Fathers were not really required. There were very few studies showing different results and anybody who disagreed or produced contrary results were attacked in some cases having death threats and in some cases having their careers trashed.  Anything that did not agree with the prevailing ideology was in trouble (look up Prof Larry Summers as an instance).  In the 90’s researchers did put their heads up above the parapet and now it is commonly accepted mum and dad are best an the earlier research didn’t stand up or was bunkum. Hardly anybody disagrees and then mostly by degree.
      A similar situation exists regarding children raised in homosexual relationships.  Until there is reasoned discourse by for and against arguments backed up by research the jury is out. Point is should children be possible collateral damage of a idiological political agenda?

    • kate says:

      02:44pm | 22/08/11

      @Bev, care to provide any evidence at all for those assertions?  Or are you making it up entirely?  Given that you’ve already been proved wrong on one assertion on this thread alone, and given that I’ve provided actual links to actual research, your bare unsupported assertions aren’t carrying much weight at this point.

    • Bev says:

      03:26pm | 22/08/11

      kate says:02:44pm | 22/08/11

      @Bev, care to provide any evidence at all for those assertions?

      I have provided one and there are more.  However I challenge you to come up with some of the feminist inspired studies I have talked about that is still in good standing (or later research for that matter) and has not been overridden by latter research showing different results to what they came up with.

      Further.  A quick google came upwith the following.
      http://www.gayconspiracy.info/gayparentsproblem.html

      1 February 2007 - Dr. A. Dean Byrd, NARTH’s President-Elect, provided evidence in an English court last month in support of a judge who was required to make judicial determinations incompatible with his philosophical beliefs about the nature of the family.

      A few excerpts:

      19. Studies of children raised by male couples are virtually non-existent. The few available studies are either anecdotal in nature or so plagued by methodological flaws as to make them simply invalid from a scientific perspective. In their excellent review of the existing studies on children raised by homosexual couples (primarily lesbian couples),
      Lerner and Nagai (2000) reached the following conclusion:

      The claim has been made that homosexual parents raise children
      as effectively as married biological parents. A detailed analysis of the methodologies of the 49 studies, which are put forward to support this claim, shows that they suffer from severe methodological flaws. In addition to their methodological flaws, none of the studies deals adequately with the problem of affirming the null hypothesis, of
      adequate sample size, and of spurious correlation.

      On the study often cited here:
      22. Patterson’s research, which has been repeatedly cited by the American Psychological Association to support gay rights, has come under significant criticism not only because of methodological flaws but because of substantial misrepresentation and selection bias. In fact, her research and subsequent testimony were EXCLUDED (emphasis mine) from a Florida court because of the use of herself and friends
      as subjects and her unwillingness to comply with a court order to provide documentation, even when requested by her own side in the conflict.

      Lots more in there about this subject and single parenting.

    • Slothy says:

      05:17pm | 22/08/11

      Bev, I’d just like to point out that I have cited the American Paediatrics Acadamey and the South Australian Government (who in turn cites 26 studies you can examine for yourself at the link I provided). Kate cites the American Psychological Association.

      You have cited a website titled gayconspiracy.info and Dr. A. Dean Byrd the former president of NARTH. What is NARTH?  The National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, a research organization that advocates sexual orientation change efforts.

      I’m sorry if you haven’t quite persuaded me yet.

    • Jem says:

      08:48am | 31/08/11

      I don’t think it’s as simple as ‘a married mum and dad is best’. It’s the character of the people who raise the child. I raised my kids as a single mother as their father turned out ot be an irresponsible, violent criminal. My sons were better off without his poor example and have turned out fine. They had good role odels in other of my male family members. They also have an understanding that not everything is always going to be peachy keen in life, but you get on with it as best you can.

      Not that raising kids in a homosexual family is some terrible tragedy. Like I said, it all depends on the character of the parents and the people the kids are supported by. Heterosexual families are not neccesarily havens of love and support jsut because they’re heteroexual families. Sadly, it’s often quite the opposite.

    • Rebecca says:

      10:23am | 22/08/11

      Here’s my Catholic perspective: Homosexuality is a sin. But so is sex before marriage, and I have done that. I’ve also lied and disrespected my parents and said mean things to people (and hope to be forgiven for all that). My point is, everybody sins and so treating gay people differently from the rest of us is wrong. God wants us to love our neighbour and treat them with the same respect that we ourselves would want, so I think gay people should have equal rights, and that includes the full legal rights of a married couple, if that’s what they want. Also, I have a question for those who say that allowing gays to marry will ruin the sanctity of marriage: Do you believe that divorce should be forbidden too?

    • David says:

      12:56pm | 22/08/11

      @Rebecca,

      I think the likes of the ACL and Family First who are campaigning so vigorously against gay marriage would be quite happy if divorce were made illegal too.

    • kate says:

      01:07pm | 22/08/11

      @Paul: look, really, this offensive lumping gay relationships in with best!ality, p@3doph!lia and now even necroph!lia has got to stop.

      It is foul, baseless and hurtful to compare loving, consensual, relationships between two unrelated adults, which do no harm to anyone, with other forms of relationship which are clearly harmful, non-consensual, exploitative and illegal.

      Just stop it.

      If this is the best you can come up with as a counter-argument, no wonder the majority (yes Bev, it IS the majority) support gay marriage, because clearly their opponents are incapable of sensibly arguing against it.

    • mel says:

      03:09pm | 22/08/11

      The obnoxious ranting by Paul won’t stop as he can’t quite comprehend the concept of informed consent when it comes to relationships. He has been told a few times by a few people (including me) and he still doesn’t quite understand.

      He must have some strange psychological affliction that doesn’t allow abstract concepts to sink into his brain. That, or he’s starting a campaign to allow his sexual preferences to gain acceptability.

    • James1 says:

      03:35pm | 22/08/11

      Perhaps he just managed to get a corpse to consent, mel.  Maybe he has some insight that we lack.

    • mel says:

      05:00pm | 22/08/11

      James1, maybe he believes in that old legal maxim, “silence denotes consent”!

      And a cool post lower down on the collapse of the Roman Empire. Spot on, speaking as an occasional archaeologist.

    • Chris says:

      06:18pm | 22/08/11

      How is it that Paul Horn can say such foul offensive things on these threads and not be censored or called out by moderators. He is a disgusting individual.

    • Tanya says:

      10:38am | 22/08/11

      I am truly at a loss to understand the level of resistance to this!

      If your case against same sex marriages is a religious one, that is a matter for your church which would not be forced to condone or acknowledge a secular decree and you can sit safely in the sanctity of your congregation knowing that. That aside,  the ONLY people affected by the status of gay marriage laws, are GAY people. The legalisation of it will have absolutely NO impact on the lives of the rest of us. Heterosexual couples can go about their business as usual.

      It is not necessary to believe or disbelieve in the cause, particularly if you are not gay. But it is essential in a democracy to believe in and ensure all people and groups are granted equality under the law. To allow a social group to be discriminated against is infinetly more dangerous to the Australian way of life in the long term.

    • Chris_D says:

      11:12am | 22/08/11

      @Tanya, my view has been that there should be a seperate act for same-sex marriages.  This is not a discriminatory view, it just recognises the difference between the two types of marriages.

      It is my view that if this was put forth as a sensible option, it should appease most people and the debate would finally be over.

    • Tanya says:

      12:27pm | 22/08/11

      Chris_D - in reality, there is no difference. Civil registration of marriage is simply that - the government knowing who you’re shacking up with. There would be absolutely nothing to be gained by isolating the two. If Rita marries Mary or John marries Simon, it’s self explanatory anyway.

      I just don’t understand the moralising. So deep, deep south.

    • Steven says:

      12:48pm | 22/08/11

      @Chris_D Should they be sitting at the back of the bus too?

    • podrida says:

      01:08pm | 22/08/11

      @ Chris D. There is a separate act for same-sex marriages. That’s what makes them “homosexuals”! Silly boy.
      With the paedophile/bestiality argument introduced, I have been waiting for some of the anti-homosexual marriage lobby to ask the obvious question. That is—If the excuse or reason for same-sex attraction is not a matter of choice but a matter of genetics, then why does not that same fallacious argument excuse bestiality and paedophilia? Or are they both learned traits? The homosexuals cannot have it both ways, (no pun intended), but I would be most keen to hear their denials of those two afforementioned unnatural traits yet the suggested acceptance of their own.
      Call me horrible if you like, but I’d still like the situation resolved. It’s so very vexing.
      P.S. I don’t care one iota whether these quinces get married or not, and I can understand Barnaby’s fear that his daughter might marry(?) into the same sex, (what makes him think such a danger exists?), but just think that it’s unfair to say one deviancy is genetic but not others. I should say that I abhorr all of them but as long as it, (homo-marriage), doesn’t become compulsory, I don’t give a damn.

    • Tanya says:

      01:35pm | 22/08/11

      @ Podrida,

      You’re horrible.

    • Daniel D says:

      03:08pm | 22/08/11

      Podrida, horrible and deliberately ignorant. Homosexual love occurs between consenting adults. No-one is being harmed. Pedophilia and bestiality do not fulfill this criteria.

    • HappyCynic says:

      03:40pm | 22/08/11

      @Porida

      The difference between homosexuality and pedophilia or bestiality is that there is no naturally occuring negative health or psychological effects caused by being attracted to the same sex.

      Pedophilia and bestiality are very different in that there are clear mental deficiencies and also they are not consensual.

    • Chris_D says:

      04:16pm | 22/08/11

      @Steven, if someone with as little intelligence as what your comment suggests you have was driving the bus, I’d rather no one was on it in the first place.

    • Steven says:

      04:59pm | 22/08/11

      @chris_D personal attacks…my nanna told me that when that happens i win the argument.
      thanks

    • Chris_D says:

      06:15pm | 22/08/11

      @Steven, yes, of course your nanna told you that.

    • podrida says:

      12:18am | 23/08/11

      Tanya… I’ll use your capitals. “The ONLY people affected by the status of gay marriage laws, (hate the perversion of that lovely word), are GAY
      people.” Rubbish!  These laws affect my wife and I. If your “unnatural” marriage becomes the same compact that my wife and I entered into then our vows become worthless.
      And when did homosexuals become a “social group”? Equality under the law? The law says that homosexuals shall not be allowed to be lawfully married. What part of that don’t you people understand?
      Sexual deviancy should not be legalised. End of story.
      I have no religous beliefs, ( because I don’t believe in fairy tales), so that doesn’t constitute any part of my objection. What does form a huge part of my objection is to the abnormal being accepted as normal. Where next?  And you dare to say that not condoning unnatural sexual practices undermines our democracy. You really should understand that what you do, and what you enjoy doing creates the real danger.
      There will be no legalisation of homosexual marriage because it is, in itself, a contradiction. Oh yes, and by the way, when these two blokes or two women have finished with there hopeful fling, who gets the child? The mother? Or the father? Or is the poor little child offered up to the next pair of deviates in line. Our society doesn’t need all of this.

    • marley says:

      07:40am | 23/08/11

      @Podrida - if gays are allowed to marry, your vows become worthless?  Why? will you no longer love and cherish her in sickness and in health?  will you no longer forsake all others and keep to her alone? 

      When I got married,  I recall making a lifelong and unconditional commitment to my spouse.  Note the word “unconditional.”  I don’t remember anything in my marriage vows that made them conditional on gays not sharing the same vows.  Yours must have been one weird wedding if yours did.  And if you think your vows no longer count because gays might use similar wording, well then, your vows obviously didn’t involve the same level of commitment as mine did.

    • Dan the breeeder says:

      10:55am | 22/08/11

      What a catty little response to any Gay Marriage Opposition.

      Look at all the name calling! - lol, the gay movement are the new bullies, I have been saying this for years. Get out of their way, they get what THEY want whether you like it or not. Whether society wants it or not. F^*k society, the gays don’t like to be told “no”. (The gays are turning into their own worst enemy)

      Maybe ThePunch will invite Katter or Joyce to write an article showing their side of this debate. Although that will not fit ThePunch’s “gay agenda” , so it’s looks like more cattiness…......

      PS I would love the Rainbow back thanks.

    • JD says:

      04:15pm | 22/08/11

      OK…. so if a kid gets sick of being bullied and ridiculed throughout their school years and they finally stand up for themselves; they are the bad ones right? Along with anyone who defends them?

      What a charming person you must have been in High School @Dan

    • Bev says:

      10:59am | 22/08/11

      They’ll be thousands more kids denied a mother or father, when these kids learn that they were denied a mother or father by choice, it could result in trust issues.

      But, I guess we’ll find out in 20-30 years as the gay juggernaut rolls on.

      Bit late for those children then.  Through out history some civilizations have moved away from/changed the forms of marriage (or its equivalent)  all have failed and weakened society.  Why should the present social experimentation be any different?  History tells us in the end it will fail and cause upheaval. We may be more advanced technically but we are still human and subject to emotions/weakness/frailty and always will be.

    • kate says:

      11:51am | 22/08/11

      Yep, that movement away from traditional marriage sure has weakened society.  Allowing mixed-race marriages, recognising marital r@pe as a crime, allowing married women to own property, changing the concept of marriage from ‘sale of woman from father to husband’ towards ‘voluntary contract of equals’, raising age of consent….  All utterly disastrous and the resulting in the End of Life As We Know It.

      Exactly like “gay” marriage.  Shocking.  Something something weakening civilization yada yada.  Blah blah oh please won’t someone think of the children?  Etc.

    • Geoff Lemon says:

      11:59am | 22/08/11

      “...all have failed and weakened society… in the end it will fail and cause upheaval…”

      I’d be deeply fascinated to see some kind of evidence there, Bev. An example? Anything?

    • Bev says:

      02:52pm | 22/08/11

      kate says:11:51am | 22/08/11

      Yep, that movement away from traditional marriage sure has weakened society.

      Most of what you talk about has no bearing on the subject its just a feminist rant.
      Easy divorce, removing dads and single parenthood has had some rather bad effects. Probably not in your eyes, for you to acknowledge that goes against the tenents of feminism doesn’t it?

      @Geoff Lemon off the top of my head the break down of the Roman empire was caused by a number of things one being the break down in families.  Similar things were recorded at the start of the industrial revolution in Britian when people moved from village life (mostly married) to cities and the decrease in stable marriage arrangments.

    • kate says:

      02:59pm | 22/08/11

      @Geoff - we’re starting to see a pattern here.   

      1.  Bev makes random unsupported assertion
      2.  Another commenter presents contrary view, asks Bev for evidence.
      3. [....]

    • kate says:

      03:10pm | 22/08/11

      Wow.  I’m speechless.  I don’t really know how to argue with someone who seriously believes that forcing women to stay in abusive marriages is a good thing.  I don’t think we’re even on the same planet.

      I mean, you do realise that what we’re calling for is gay MARRIAGE?  You know - till death us do part and the rest?  So we can provide stability, security and strong families to bring up children; reduce prejudice, harm and discrimination; increase acceptance;  that sort of thing?    The whole point, for many of us, is to protect our children.  I would have thought you would support that.

    • James1 says:

      03:22pm | 22/08/11

      “Geoff Lemon off the top of my head the break down of the Roman empire was caused by a number of things one being the break down in families.”

      Actually, no it wasn’t.  The main issue was actually the massive transfer of wealth from Rome to the East, largely to buy luxury items like silk.  There were also a range of other issues - allowing mercinaries to form the bulk of the Roman army, bad provincial administration, the growing power and unity of Germanic tribes, the various religious schisms after Constantine’s adoption of Christianity as the state religion, the sheer size of the empire and the contemporary adminstrative difficulties associated therewith…  Families had very little to do with it, unless of course you are referring to the consumption of luxury items by largely patrician families.  Gay marriage had nothing to do with it at all.  What a strangely ahistorical argument.

    • progressivesunite says:

      03:23pm | 22/08/11

      @ kate - you missed a step:
      4 - Bev blames feminism for all the world’s ills

    • Bev says:

      03:46pm | 22/08/11

      progressivesunite says:03:23pm | 22/08/11

      @ kate - you missed a step:
      4 - Bev blames feminism for all the world’s ills
      Only for many of our social ills along with the other usual suspects like the social engineers. Rampant consumerism fostered by Corporations doesn’t help either.

    • Kleia says:

      11:02am | 22/08/11

      My Mum and Dad were married, too, My Barnaby. In fact, as a homophobe, my father would’ve been one of your greatest fans. He’d get drunk every night and just for fun, he beat me unconscious on several occasions. My heterosexual mother began telling me to kill myself from the age of five. But, yes, it’s definitely homosexuality that’s going to destroy the good notion of familial harmony. I’m sure that if I “find security” in a man who wants to beat me mercislessly, I’ll be contributing to the harmony of the nuclear family you so desire. My current boyfriend, on the other hand, was raised by a homosexual father who taught his son the values of respect, tolerance and compassion. Something’s wrong with your theory, Mr. Barnaby!

    • Ali K says:

      11:18am | 22/08/11

      Thats right because your hetrosexual parent are bad means that all hetrosexual parent are bad.

      If hetrosexual and homosexual marriages are equal loving and the same the same abuse can occur. After all we are all equal

    • FINK says:

      11:53am | 22/08/11

      While I condemn your father for his disgraceful and disgusting parenting, I do believe your stance is somewhat slanted! So you think there are NO hetero fathers out there that can teach"his son the values of respect, tolerance and compassion”? I think you may find this is the norm and the your experiences are the exception! Do you not think that Homosexual fathers cannot inflict the same level of abuse on a Child as your father did or even worse? Also I am curious as to whether your boyfriends father is his biological father and was in he in a relationship with the mother at the time of conception? just curious that’s all!

    • Geoff Lemon says:

      12:02pm | 22/08/11

      Way to miss the point, Ali.

    • Ali K says:

      01:11pm | 22/08/11

      @Geoff Lemon, Kleia is citing that her expirence of a abusive dysfuntional hetro family was bad yet her boyfriend with gay parents family is good. Therefore why should we stop homosexuals being married because her boyfriend is normal.

      My point is that if all relationships are equal that a hetro and homo can do equally bad and equally good at raising children and the Kleia is usung her example of why homosexual couple should marry and raise a family. Im saying that its a horrible example. Reverse the situation.

      Eg. I grew up with 2 fathers who beat me a abused me sexually my botyfriend grew up with a loving mother and father. Therefore homosexual parents are bad.

      What utter rubbish we have to admit that the same abuse occur to children in homosexual couple as hetrosexual couples

    • marley says:

      03:45pm | 22/08/11

      @Ali K.  -you missed the point entirely.

      If a heterosexual marriage can result in abused children, and a homosexual relationship can result in a well-adjusted child, all that means is that its not the nature of the relationship between the parents that matters, but the quality of their relationship with the child.

      There is no valid reason to distinguish between opposite-sex and same-sex relationships insofar as child raising is concerned.  It shouldn’t be part of the discussion at all.  And that’s the point.

    • Ali K says:

      05:12pm | 22/08/11

      I think we are saying the same thing.

      I never stated that there was a diffrence I was making the point that you cannot justify homosexual relationships because some hetro relationship are bad. equal good. equal bad. get it equal all the same.

      Im saying that its a poor argument to make and that it should be the reason to justify homosexual marriage. As it will go wrong as soon as a couple of gay parents rape their child ( and it will happen) every body will be calling gays to not have children. It the wrong premis to argue on.

      As per my comment ‘After all we are all equal’

    • Nathan says:

      01:30am | 23/08/11

      The point being made is that the nuclear family is not the be all and end all and there are problems with it. The fact is we live in modern world and if actions are not effecting anyone else in a negative way who cares. It was never said “all hetrosexual fathers are bad”

    • Michael Larkin says:

      11:07am | 22/08/11

      My understanding of the issue, and anyone can feel free to prove me wrong, is that the gay community only really wants the legal protections afforded to couples in marriages and de facto relationships also applied to gay and lesbian couples. It’s not so much about standing in front of a priest and saying I do.

    • Bev says:

      11:42am | 22/08/11

      If you check you will find that the law does not discriminate.  Only in the marriage act.

    • David says:

      11:58am | 22/08/11

      @Michael Larkin,

      I think that is what the debate is about. Homosexuals want the same recognition of their relationship by the state that heterosexuals have. Why any gay person would want recognition by the church is beyond me. Homosexuality and religion are mutually exclusive.

    • salad says:

      12:45pm | 22/08/11

      @Bev,

      “Only in the marriage act.” So because we are only being discriminated against in the marriage act its ok? You do realise that an “act” is law.

      So from that logic the “I thought they were Gay and making a pass at me murder defence” is also ok because its only in Criminal law?

      Also Women only get a little bit less pay than men… its only a little bit less equal so why don’t Women shut up about that?

    • Markus says:

      04:38pm | 22/08/11

      “Also Women only get a little bit less pay than men… its only a little bit less equal so why don’t Women shut up about that?”
      No woman gets paid less than any man for the same work. The pay gap myth is based on the fact that the average childcare worker earns less than the average engineer, for what feminists claim is ‘equal’ work.
      So yes, women should shut up about it raspberry

    • Doug Pollard says:

      11:55am | 22/08/11

      This is far and away the best and most complete and absolute demolition of the case against same-sex marriage I have ever read, performed with savage wit and surgical precision. Thank you. It is clear from many of the comments here that many of your readers, however, completely missed the point.
      All this tosh about ‘why can’t they call it something else’ and ‘it’ll lead to incest/polgamy/animal marriage’ and, worst of all, it might force them to tell their children the truth - that some people are gay, and it’s no big deal. Rubbish.
      The point is simple: the time is past when being ‘tolerated’ or ‘accepted’ or any other similar patronising attitude - such as ‘just don’t call it marriage’ -  was an adequate response.  It is time to for you to acknowledge that we are GAY - Good As You - and our relationships should be cherished and celebrated exactly as yours are.
      That’s why only marriage - and not some other word or institution - will do.

    • progressivesunite says:

      01:59pm | 22/08/11

      Brilliantly put : )

    • Chris_D says:

      04:20pm | 22/08/11

      @Doug Pollard, “This is far and away the best and most complete and absolute demolition of the case against same-sex marriage I have ever read, performed with savage wit and surgical precision.”

      You need to get out more, get some new friends or read a good book.

    • Anna C says:

      11:57am | 22/08/11

      You people don’t seem to understand that the heterosexual couple is still considered the ‘ideal’ when it comes to couples in our society and in nature; this is because they are normally able to produce children naturally. As a society we put this type of relationship on a pedestal by allowing them to marry and hopefully start a family, thus encouraging others to do the same. 

      Face it, but without the aid of a turkey baster or IVF, gay couples would not be able to reproduce at all and they are certainly not able to produce a child which is the offspring of both parents in that relationship. That is why their relationships are not considered ideal or on par with heterosexual ones. That is why to many people around the world your relationships will always be considered second-class. 

      Sorry to have to spell it out for you, but I’m just telling it like it is.

    • David says:

      12:22pm | 22/08/11

      @Anna C,

      Diminishing the status of same sex and single parent families by labelling the heterosexual couple as ideal and putting it up on a pedestal only serves to marginalise and disadvantage children in families other than the traditional ‘nuclear family’. Children may find themselves in non traditional families for any number of reasons. It is not fair to disadvantage them by diminishing the status of their family unit.

    • Anne71 says:

      12:44pm | 22/08/11

      @Anna C - “gay couples….are certainly not able to produce a child which is the offspring of both parents in that relationship… That is why to many people around the world your relationships will always be considered second-class.”
      By your logic, then,  infertile heterosexual couples who use egg and / or sperm donors in order to conceive a child are “second-class” too. After all, they are unable to produce children “naturally”?

    • Anna C says:

      01:06pm | 22/08/11

      “It is not fair to disadvantage them by diminishing the status of their family unit.”

      David, since when is life fair for god’s sakes?

      If you want to argue with 1000 years of history and tradition then go right ahead, but I didn’t make up the rules.

      The nuclear family is still considered the bedrock of our society. Growing up in a family unit with a mum and a dad is still considered the ideal environment for a child whether in nature or society. Sorry, but not all family units are created equal.

    • David says:

      01:33pm | 22/08/11

      @Anna C,

      If no one had ever argued with history and tradition we would:

      Deny women the right to vote,
      Criminalise gay people for having sex,
      Still have state imposed racism like the White Australia Policy,
      Remove aboriginal children from their biological parents.

      As society matures our ideas of what is fair, just and appropriate matures also. I don’t give a rats arse what is historically and traditionally considered the ideal family. The fact is that today, with the knowledge and evidence we now have, there is no basis for discrimination against children who find themselves in non traditional families.

    • Anna C says:

      02:18pm | 22/08/11

      David are you seriously denying that it is better for a child to be raised by both their mother and father than by anyone else? Are you saying that one of these parents is surplus to requirements?

      Over and over again studies have shown us that children do best when raised in a nuclear family environment.  I think it is the height of arrogance to deny this and just goes to show that gay people are all too willing to put their own desires (of having a child) ahead of what is best for that child.

      I used to be very pro-gay marriage but not anymore.  I don’t appreciate the gay lobby and the government trying to impose gay marriage on our society by stealth, before it is ready to take that step. When you guys can show me a rally with tens of thousands of people in support of gay marriage, well then I’ll change my mind.

    • fml says:

      02:55pm | 22/08/11

      I think thats exactly what they think, and i think that perception is what they are trying to change.

    • Bev says:

      04:13pm | 22/08/11

      Anna C says:02:18pm | 22/08/11

      I used to be very pro-gay marriage but not anymore.
      I have to agree I was neutral about gay marriage but no more as I see it as part of a continueing agenda.  That I do not accept.

    • Chris says:

      06:16pm | 22/08/11

      Oh Bev lets not bullshit each other, you never were for gay marriage and you likely will be one of the people sitting in awkward silence in 10-20 years time when people stand around saying I can’t believe anyone was ever heartless enough to deny equal rights to these people.

      There is no agenda, if so you must know what’s next, so please tell me, what is next. I would like to know.

    • Totally unimportant says:

      01:07pm | 24/08/11

      Without IVF and a whole lot of medical help/drugs and equipment, I can’t produce a child.

      Does that make my heterosexual marriage second-class? By your argument, yes.

      Not good enough.

    • Gary Bradbury says:

      12:03pm | 22/08/11

      Whats the difference between Tilly Devine andd Miranda Devine? One is an Opiniated Harlot and the other features in the new Underbelly Series.

    • Bev says:

      04:28pm | 22/08/11

      I find that comment quite sexist and revolting

    • Amanda says:

      12:05pm | 22/08/11

      A message to the author.  I enjoyed the article, however before you get sucked into ‘liking Katter’ …’because you trust him at least you know where he is coming from and is predictable’ you might want to check out how many Aboriginal people died in custody whilst he was the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in Queensland, and the draconian laws he introduced to remove fundamental rights of Aboriginal people.  Do not let stupidity seduce you; he is a very dangerous and disturbingly influential man for someone who represents such a small minority of the nation’s population!

    • Paul Horn says:

      12:32pm | 22/08/11

      Damned fool! How many more Aboriginal children die, are abused, emotionally tormented as a result of draconian leftist labor law that dictates they cannot be removed from their families because of crazy ideology! Familiies that are out of control with drug, alcohol and violent abuse that wold make Keith Richards look like Fred Nile!

      Please reseach your cursed facts before spouting lies, lies and more damned lies! 

      People like you are the problem not Bob Katter!

    • fairsfair says:

      03:27pm | 22/08/11

      Are you aware of his party’s push to issue deeds to traditional owners of native title lands - so that they can actually control and develop the land and remove dependence from the state? So that they can develop identity, industry, skills, leave something behind for their kids… No other party supports this.

      Are you aware of just how popular the man is with his aboriginal constituents and those in areas surrounding Kennedy (the third largest electorate in Australia)?

      Don’t fall for the sound bites Amanda.

    • Gus says:

      12:05pm | 22/08/11

      i I used to read Miranda Devine’s articles in the little room as a medicine for constipation

    • Demoman says:

      12:17pm | 22/08/11

      After marriage they’ll go after heteronormativity, job quotas and political representation in society.

      A victim lobby without a cause invents things to be unhappy about or they become redundant.

    • FINK says:

      01:16pm | 22/08/11

      “A victim lobby without a cause invents things to be unhappy about or they become redundant”
      Replace “victim lobby” with current political party and I can see the association although one wants to make us all unhappy.

    • Eleanor says:

      01:02pm | 22/08/11

      “Are fudge-packers, nancy-boys, and pillow-biters all names for the same thing, or do they signify a hierarchy of types and sizes, like orcs?”

      Fuck you for making me choke on my coffee in a quiet office. Now my boss is looking at me funny.

    • bored tooth brush restorer says:

      01:36pm | 22/08/11

      Geoff, just get on with it, whatever that is in this journalistic offering, and stop being a lemon to those who may accidentally stray, to see what this is all about. Try pheasant plucking, be adventurous!

    • Cat says:

      01:49pm | 22/08/11

      This has to be one of the most coffee-splurking, laugh-out-loud funny posts I can ever remember reading on The Punch - you win the entire internet, I love this article!

    • Wombat says:

      02:02pm | 22/08/11

      I thought the breakfast analogy was spot-on.

      But straight people use swiss nave lube too :O

    • progressivesunite says:

      02:15pm | 22/08/11

      Straights have no right whatsoever to dictate what rights gays have - I’m sick and tired of words like “tolerance” - it’s not your place to announce that you tolerate us! How arrogant of you. We exist and we’re normal and if you can’t take that, you’re just a pure bigot - and you deserve to be called out for it. The sooner we ensure that all children realise that straight and gay/lesbian are both entirely normal and both perfectly valid lives for them to aim to lead, the better off our society will be (and having gay marriages will help with that).

      Those of you fretting about “where will it end if the gays get even more rights!?”, I’ll tell you. It’ll end with us finally, after centuries of persecution, taking our rightful place in society - right alongside you as complete and utter equals - and you’re heteronormative privilege won’t be of any use to you. If that scares you, you’re a homophobe - if you’re fine with it, then you’re not a homophobe. Simple, hey. This is not about “opinions”, it’s about right and wrong. Homophobes are just wrong.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      03:55pm | 22/08/11

      progressivesunite says…Straights have no right whatsoever to dictate what rights gays have….Yes but God your Creator has and you are answerable to Him regardless of what you claim to the contrary and He tells you that you have no right to sin… No He won’t take away your free will,  you can choose to continue in your unnatural life style if you want to but don’t try and dictate to Him and others that it must be accepted as good and normal,  for one thing nature shows us it is not…. God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

      But like most Christians I do agree passionately with the need to be Loving and tolerant of others but I cannot water down God’s warning that people who practice Homosexuality are in grave error and danger and I have seen the heartache and despair that Homosexuality causes close at hand although not sexually involved but I was part of their unnatural lifestyle for some time and I now have a friend whose son is Homosexual and he has suffered a lot… sadly his choice to do so.

      I believe in light of the Scriptures that God is not accepting of this type of behaviour in anyway the same as with all sin, if it continues it is like cancer and eats you away, but I do not in any way agree that He does not have compassion and Love for those who do wrong and are in bondage to it , God’s Truth is very clear about this but He longs for those who sin to repent and turn from evil and do good.
      In warning us that we will be punished for the wrong we do, God is in fact seeking to protect us in the same way the Law in our Country is, for example what would happen if we all chose our own agenda when it came to the traffic lights such as ... you and I decided from now on red was go and green meant stop, we would be placing not only ourselves but others in danger and this would still be so even if we found some others who would agree with us . God’s Laws are not to deprive us or cause us pain and they are not based on intolerance as most people understand it. Yes God is indeed intolerant of wrong doing, the same as the Law of the Land is, but it is for our good not bad.

      It is not His will that anyone is judged and punished for the sins they have committed He Loves us all and He has provided a way out but it is always our choice if we accept it.

      Kind Regards Anne Stocks.

    • marley says:

      04:29pm | 22/08/11

      @Anne Stocks - your version of Christianity is not a universal one, you know.  There are Christians who would find your views narrow, even ungodly.  There are Christians who do accept and recognize homosexual relationships;  most mainstream Churches accept the tenets of evolution;  many mainstream Christian Churches have female ministers; and some even perform gay marriages. 

      Perhaps your limited and narrow view of Christianity is sufficient for you, but for those of a more generous temperament, who understand the meaning of Christian charity, it would not be.  You do not speak for Christianity nor indeed for Christians.  You shouldn’t for a minute think that you do.

    • mel says:

      04:31pm | 22/08/11

      Oh Anne, when will you realise that you cannot give primacy to christian beliefs when trying to develop Australian society. Australia is not constituted as a christian country. All your talk of what your god wants of says or believes might be important to you, but is irrelevant to australian society.

      You mumble about unnatural lifestyles and god’s punishment but, really, aren’t you just making stuff up now. Can you point to those countries which have allowed gay marriage and have suffered punishment from your vengeful nasty god?

      And you tell us that unless we do what he says, your god will punish us. He doesn’t want to judge or he doesn’t want to punish, but he’ll do it anyway! Can’t he stop himself? Isn’t he omnipotent? To a rational observer, your god sounds like he doesn’t love us at all but really loves his own laws and capricious regulations. What sort of love is that!

    • HappyCynic says:

      04:34pm | 22/08/11

      @Anne

      Your version of “G-d’s truth” is not the same as everyone elses, in fact if it’s the same as anyone elses I’d be very surprised.  I don’t seem to remember G-d rambling on this incoherently and with spelling this poor, though the Old Man is getting a little long in the tooth these days so maybe He has started waffling a bit as most old people are wont to do.

      The fact is no scripture is exactly clear on the status of homosexuality, some believe homosexual sex is banned only in the instances that it’s used as a means for worshipping other false gods, some believe the ban only applies in the case of orgies and other promiscuous behaviour while loving, long-term and chaste same-sex relationships are fine according to G-d.  And others still believe that the ban on same-sex relations only applies to straight people.

      No interpretation of scriptures is wrong or immoral unless it causes harm to another.  Since there is no evidence that homosexuality is harmful in any way it stands to reason then that any interpretation of the scriptures that isolates and excludes these people is an immoral one.

    • amy says:

      06:04pm | 22/08/11

      @Anne Stocks

      let me spell this out for you very….VERY clearly

      not…...everyone…........belives…..........in god

      understand?

      religion is NOT a valid argument here, this is you telling us your fairytales and expecting that to serve as a valid argument

      that might sound offensive, and I apologise but the fact is we dont care…ok?

      I mean sure if people under your religion cant be gay..fine but leave everyone else alone

    • Anne Stocks says:

      02:35pm | 22/08/11

      Tom Ballard…. It does seems that Miranda pushed a few of your buttons ..why?

      Most people like you Tom who use vulgar language show they are lacking in the ability to express themselves without resorting to mindless repetitions and proffesionals tell us this shows a lack of intelligence,  and even though some people may regard bad language as the norm today it does not make it acceptable or uplifting or respectful and it is also setting a bad example to young people but thankfully not many of them click onto Punch, well let’s hope not they need to be protected, perhaps a mouth wash with soup would help Tom, as for me I chose not to listen to very much of your rant, I like Men to present informitive and helpful information and to show respect to others even if they don’t agree with their actions and express it.

      I have been around the block more then once as I said before which means I have acquired quiet a lot of life wisdom from good and bad experiences as most Seniors do and which you have yet to experience Tom . Also with being an Atheist for almost 30 years and deceived by Evolution teaching I have been in a lot of life situations that I’m sure most long term Christians haven’t although I’m sure there are those who have had simular or parable,  but thankfully as a Christian for almost 30 years now I have Godly wisdom and do not walk the same path I walked as a Atheist and I have Hope which I didn’t have before. I’m not Ordained this is a Man’s role so I don’t preach, but I do share God’s Truth as He asks both male and females to do and also to rebuke and warn and I believe Miranda Devine is faithful in doing this and I commend her for it as do others who stand by God’s Truth.

      Men are to be in Authority and in leadership and women are their helpmates but this is not a put down it is a very high calling for a woman and it is how we will find true contentment and fulfilment the same as men in their Leadership role, both these roles cannot be filled by two of the same sex in Marriage which the natural order of things show us very clearly and this is because it is not the way God ordained Marriage to be.

      And with Homosexuals claiming that having no understanding of unnatural Homosexual relationships is a reason why we don’t accept what they do,  is far from the Truth for me.  I would have become involved in one because of loneliness’ if I had not been saved from it although I don’t exactly understand why it didn’t happen because after being so hurt by men for so long I was willing to welcome any love shown to me even unnatural love but now I give heartfelt thanks that it did not happen because one thing I came to realise at that time and later in life when I was in close contact with Homosexuals but not sexually, was that what Homosexuals present to the world trying to uphold that their lifestyle is normal, is not the real story what is sadly shows sever deficiencies in being able to have normal healthy fulfilling relationships.

      Kind regards Anne.

    • mel says:

      03:46pm | 22/08/11

      Anne Stocks, I do remember from previous posts on other topics that you have very specific requirements when it comes to manners. Other people do not, of course, so it’s no point telling people off. I’m sure that Tom is an adult and can make his own choices in that respect.

      Your post talks a lot about your god’s ‘truth’, along with some random biblical ideas but what does that have to do with the situation of gay marriage in Australia? Australia is not a christian country so such irrelevant quotes have nothing to do wit the topic.

      You also need to explain how homosexual love is unnatural, given it occurs in nature. It’s quite normal, just a different normal to your limited version. The gay people I’ve known have had quite healthy and fulfilling relationships.

      Some evidence for all the things you say would be appreciated!

    • Allie says:

      10:31am | 23/08/11

      Not everyone believes in god or that women were put on this earth to serve men or that masochism is their ‘high calling’. This is not fullfilling to me. It’s insulting to me as a woman and as a human being. I find fulfilment and contentment with other women, not men. This is ‘the natural order’ for me. ‘God’ and ‘his’ laws are irrelevant because I’m not a believer. Simple. I don’t understand why this is so hard for some people to accept.

    • Notquitenormal says:

      02:42pm | 22/08/11

      This article is no different than any other which promotes homosexual rights. It’s preachy, baseless and unnecessary. The whole idea that gay men and women are treated as second class citizens is utter garbage.

      I’ll focus in on gay men for this… as society does not look down on a man who sleeps with another man. Society is disgusted by the man with the fake lisp, makeup and pink shorts squealing his way down Oxford St proclaiming that he likes it rough. It’s fine to be what you consider “yourself’, however dont complain when society sees you as a freak.

      There is a HUGE difference between being gay and being a complet fairy queen. It is the fairy queens who are the ones prancing up and down who say they want something because the ‘breeders’ have it. It’s such a childish argument.

      For the record, i’m a gay guy. I accept that physically disqualifies me from having children. I accept that I will never get ‘married’... regardless of whether or not it becomes legal. I will never ‘march’ in the mardi gras as it’s a disgusting display of gay porn rather than accurately (and needlessly) promoting a minority group.

      The yanks really had something with dont ask, dont tell. What straight people get up to in their bedroom is their business and I think that should be reciprocated by the gay community. Dress and act in public like the equals you wish to be recognised as.

    • marley says:

      03:28pm | 22/08/11

      @NQR - I used to be dubious about the concept of gay marriage - until I realized the legal impact it was having on friends of mine, who happened to be a gay couple with a relationship, back then, of some ten years’ standing.  One of the guys was working overseas, so the other came along - if they’d been married, visas wouldn’t have been an issue and neither would things like health care coverage abroad, allowances for travel, work permits, etc etc etc.  They had all sorts of complications on these fronts because their relationship wasn’t recognized. 

      They cared about the marriage issue, not because they wanted to flaunt their relationship, but because they were denied the protections, benefits and civil conveniences that straight couples in identical circumstances would have been granted.

      Fortunately for them, they were both Canadian, and around three or four years later, they were able to get married. That addressed rather a lot of the issues they’d faced.  And the two of them were about as far from being “in your face queens” as any two guys you could imagine.

    • Cat says:

      03:57pm | 22/08/11

      speak for yourself - this member of society has no issue with someone expressing their identity in any way they see fit, and has no problem treating people who dress/act in a variety of ways with equal courtesy. THIS member of society knows quite a lot of people you would call “freaks” and think you are the one missing out on getting to know some increadibly wonderful people by being overly judgemental and THIS member of society is pleased you have the freedom to make choices in line with your beliefs and kindly askes you don’t stop others from doing so when it doesn’t impact upon you….oh and the Americans repealed “don’t ask, Don’t tell” because it was recognised to be a stupid idea.

    • Tilly says:

      04:32pm | 22/08/11

      @notquitenormal

      I’m also gay, and I’m also like the majority of other gay people in existence that don’t fit the definition of that one extreme that you noted.  Don’t ask don’t tell is a terrible argument, because it inherently spills out into the public sphere.  I’d like to be able to walk down the street holding hands with my partner, without inciting glares, stares and demeaning comments.  We are not unreasonable with our public displays of affection, and yet others feel that they are then able to publicly look down upon us for it.

      The fact is that society does have a problem with the fact that I sleep with someone of the same gender—I am reminded of it each time someone argues that being gay is abnormal, against nature, or the gateway to a slippery slope of moral boundaries. 

      Unlike you, however, I will advocate for change where change is necessary.  Had women, aboriginals and other minorities simply “accepted” that things would never have changed.  As a woman, I am extremely grateful to those who advocated for my rights to vote, have a career and so on.  As a lesbian, I will advocate for change so that future generations will have opportunities denied to previous generations.

    • Get Real People says:

      03:25pm | 22/08/11

      I don’t think it is homosexuality or a persons sexual orientation that is really concerning the general paublic at the moment rather the emergence of homosexuality as a popular culture and its incorporation into mainstream society…?

    • Drew(Darlinghurst) says:

      04:42pm | 22/08/11

      Homosexuality is mainstream

      Members of the LGBT Community come from all walks of life;

      we are doctors
      we are lawyers
      we are teachers
      we are shop assistants
      we are tradies
      we are social workers
      we are accountants
      we are merchant bankers
      we are politicians
      we are council workers
      WE ARE EVERYWHERE !!!!!
      we are your mothers
      we are your fathers
      we are your sisters
      we are your brothers
      we are your aunts
      we are your uncles

      GAY IS MAINSTREAM…..Thank You

    • Gordy says:

      04:50pm | 22/08/11

      Indeed, but I bet all those who complain about the promotion of homosexuality in the media, TV, movies, and elsewhere have never applied for a job in these industries, yet they will complain about media standards until the cows come home. Traditionalists don’t respect the media but expect the media to reflect their own values. As if, bro.

    • n_dude says:

      04:20pm | 22/08/11

      I would like to use the same argument here that Ant Sharwood has used in his recent posting titled “Truckie sooks vs Libyans with real problems”. That is there are more important issues in the world that deserve attention and the proponents of gay marriage should stop whinging and be grateful they are not discriminated against. Or is that not the Punch way.

    • mel says:

      05:13pm | 22/08/11

      Unfortunately, n_dude, it was a poor argument by Sharwood and it still is when you use it. The implication is that we as a society can’t manage more than one problem at a time. We can and we do. Humans are good like that.

      And sorting out the rights for a section of our society is fairly important anyway.

    • Chris says:

      06:07pm | 22/08/11

      They are discriminated against.. That’s the point.

      Just because some countries have it much worse is no excuse to lower our standards.

    • wearestardust says:

      04:30pm | 22/08/11

      @ the Christians: I respect your position on homosexuality.  You are free to hold that view.  Be as straight as you like.  Be free not to be homosexual.  Homophobic scare tactics aside, no-one is planning to force you otherwise.

      What I don’t agree with is your insistence that your particular religious views be enforced on the rest of society.  A thought experiment for you: how would you feel if you were forced to comply with Buddhist rules about diet?  Or Muslim rules about fasting in Ramadan ?  How would you like to be required to wear Mormon temple underwear?  Or not be allowed to have a life-saving blood transfusion because it would offend JWs?  I’m cool with all these things (except probably refusing blood transfusions to kids; that’s not just affecting the consenting believer).  Fill your boots if that’s your thing.  But this is exactly what you are saying: you want society to run by just your particular rules, that have no basis other than in your particular beliefs.

    • stephen says:

      05:16pm | 22/08/11

      For christ’s sake go and get married then and let me eat my breakfast in peace.
      Whinge.
      And it took 30 million years for the dinosaurs to become extinct, surely you lot can wait a bit more than 27 years, (the introduction of the last Marriage Act ?) for ignorance to wain ?

    • Alex says:

      06:00pm | 22/08/11

      I think this article makes a whole lot of sense and uses a bit of sarcastic humour to take a prod at the pollies. Sorry but isn’t that what they have been doing to us (GLBTI people) for years? We get told that our relationships are worthless and a disgrace, but heaven forbid a writer suggest that perhaps GLBTI people (and their relationships) are actually worth something.

      My partner and I will get married one day, and on that day (and through the following years) our marriage will have absolutely no effect on anyone else (except maybe our friends and families who will share in our happiness).

      As for this absolutely stupid argument about gay marriage leading to polygamy and incest… You ‘anti people’ are equating loving and consensual relationships (based on genuine sexual orientations) with something completely different.

      And finally, if you are someone who is against same-sex marriage, then don’t marry someone of the same sex. If you object due to religious beliefs, then remember that not everyone believes what you do. You do things your way, and we’ll do things our way.

      Thanks…

    • nikki heat says:

      06:04pm | 22/08/11

      abolish marriage and you abolish divorce.

    • Kim says:

      06:09pm | 22/08/11

      Here’s a bit of logic that the writer seems to have missed (or maybe they did mention it and I missed it while trying not to laugh too loudly at work): marriage is a contract.  It may have started out as a religious institution - or been taken over by them, no idea - but the government is now in charge of facilitating them. 

      This means all of the ones complaining on religious grounds need to shut up and sit down.  Governments should not be in the business of legislating contracts based on gender,.

      Religions can define their particular ceremonies how ever they like and proponents of that religion can/will follow that belief system.  But the whole church (or which ever religoin you adhere to)/state separation negates any input a religious body has in terms of legal legal contracts.  The other side of the coin on this looks like Shia Law - laws dictated by religious beliefs, whose system is inflexible and cruel to those that are not a reflection of it’s out moded belief system. Hands up who wants that one?  And now hands up who realizes that their particular religious beleifs will not be recognized and they will have to live under the law of another religion with which they do not agree and have had no input in forming or changing? 

      Once marraige was made a contract, which is legislated by the government, gay marriage just becamme marraige.  Because if it’s not, then it is discrimination based on gender.  There, I’ve taken sexuality out of it all together, does that make any of the crazies feel better?  You are wrong but not because you are homophobic (and under educated) but because to define a contract based on gender is gender discrimination.  Feel better now?

    • Alex says:

      06:50pm | 22/08/11

      I totally agree with your argument. The government is in essence using Christian morality (religion) to discriminate against a group of people. It is indeed, gender discrimination. This piece of logic has not eluded all politicians however. Governments around the world are looking at Australia and puzzling over how backwards we are for a ‘free’ and ‘democratic’ nation.

    • Servaas says:

      06:18pm | 22/08/11

      Not a good article. The writer clearly doesn’t get why people oppose gay marriage.

    • Rick says:

      06:46pm | 22/08/11

      you’ve really helped to clear that up with your comment. Thanks

    • Chris_D says:

      07:09pm | 22/08/11

      @Servaas, apparently it’s something to do with breakfast.

    • podrida. says:

      10:53am | 23/08/11

      Servarse. I think the article was saying homosexuality, and lesbianism is okay, but not at the breakfast table. Or something.
      Now go back to your bed.

    • Rob says:

      07:08pm | 22/08/11

      Should be voted on during an election. I know there are many people who say “The majority of Australians agree” but that would prove it once and for all. I’d highly doubt it would get up in a vote.

    • Fred Phillips says:

      05:18pm | 23/08/11

      Not really the point, though. Something that’s wrong in principle doesn’t become okay through being popular.

    • Somatick says:

      07:34pm | 22/08/11

      who FNing cares? all the tight ass righties with nothin better to do than stick their business where its never wanted. pretty freakin sure there’s a lot more shit to worry about in the world. and if people wanna get married, whoever you are, then good freakin luck to you.

    • Jack says:

      07:39pm | 22/08/11

      Blah blah blah

    • Pam says:

      07:47pm | 22/08/11

      It’s all just such BS and soooo frustrating.  WTF is Barnaby Joyce EVER talking about, let alone Ms Devine.  The suicide rate of gay youth is shameful and thoughtless adults contribute.  Nonetheless, I am not gay, and I am not a youth, but geez I feel suicidal whenever Barnaby opens his mouth - it’s impossible to come to terms with the fact that he’s actually an elected member of parliament.  But all that aside - for goodness sake - just let gay people be married if they want to be - what the hell has it got to do with anyone else.  All the arguments re law of contract are valid - and the breakfast analogy is absolutely spot on !

    • Max says:

      09:21pm | 22/08/11

      I really don’t think this is a gay vs straight issue. I think if a rabbit will run then a dog will chase it. It’s basically bullying dressed in a suit.

      Gay and lesbian people are no longer meek rabbits to be picked on. If any community leader (political or religious) thinks it’s ok to downgrade anyone for who they are - to invent a common enemy so they can sway the greater population control, just as NAZIs did with any group small enough to “blame” - then I have a few stories to tell.

      If politicians and right-wing Christians fail to recognise the “dog” in themself then I think it’s time to show them the leash.

      Family Voice Australia might like to ponder a couple of resignations earlier in the year - you know, a “take the log from your own eye” moment.

    • michael j says:

      11:08pm | 22/08/11

      @Smokin-Joe Jesus Christ mate ,thought that would never end ,if
      i didn’t cum across that pun about the KAT wif the HAT i would have stopped reading and gone straight to the dribble i nowrite ,it is obvious none of the crew mentioned read the punch or no doubt they would have mentioned the Ugandan
      perspective of homo-sexual’s,wif the poo-poo eating and the large amount of drugs some gay’s have to take to indulge in the fore-play game known as FISTING,, nope no prostrate examine for me ,,i for one am glad i choose not to be a homosexual when i was a young man and didn’t have to watch my kids grow up in a test tube ,,anyway what about bi-sexuals,, never seem to hear much from them on these matters, like fisting or even gay marriage or are they still just perverts ? but any-who what ya choose is ya own deal get married if ya want ,why i dont no ,? you are not special ,do what you want just keep it out of the public toilets,,,,

    • podrida says:

      11:35pm | 22/08/11

      Max, it is not a ‘gay v straight issue’. It is not , for me, a political or religous issue, but it is a situation wherein I fail to see why those degenerates who persevere in shouting that they are “normal” can’t accept the fact that they are not. If they, (you?), persist in saying , “I’m normal”, and then say that they can’t help it because they were born that way, can’t understand that so were all of the other deviates that we abhorr, (paedophiles, granny rapers, those who practice bestiality), ‘born that way’, then the defence falls on barren ground.
      Do what you will, as long as you don’t hurt me or mine, but please don’t tell me that you don’t choose to be that way inclined. Don’t tell me that what you do is not your preference. And for goodness (?), sake, don’t tell me you were “born that way”.

    • mel says:

      09:21am | 23/08/11

      Podrida, I’ll try to use little words and short sentences so you will understand. Being gay is normal, it’s just not the same as you. It’s OK that they are not the same as you. No-one is interested in making you turn gay. Gay people are not the same as paedophiles, granny rapers and those who practice bestiality. Those things are crimes for a good reason. Being gay is not a crime. It’s OK, your world will not change if gay people get married.

      I hope that’s clear.

    • Chuck says:

      02:41am | 23/08/11

      Save our children.  Arrest the Christian Lobby today.    Gay marriage is not a threat to our children or society, but the Christians.    These people that call themselves “Christians” are some of the most evil people you will come across.  Never trust anyone who professes to be a christian in order to obtain your votes or business.  How many more stories must we hear before we figure this out?

      We strive so hard to teach our children right from wrong and then see the things the Christian Lobby do.  Shameful.

      Don’t get me wrong, there is a God and God is watching.  Trust me, many of these professing Christians will burn in the fires of hell for the evil things they’ve done on this planet.  God will deal with these people accordingly.

      I look at the Christian Lobby in the same light as I do the Nazi’s or any other racist group.  Shameful.  We should demand that our govermentment protect us from these home grown terrorist as the Christian lobby has become.

      We are talking about LOVE between two consenting adults.  Figure it out people.

    • Ronald Bradley says:

      03:56am | 23/08/11

      I just don’t get it.  I simply do not see why allowing gay couples to marry undermines, denegrates or insults marriage in general or other couples who are married or wish to marry.  In fact, I simply don’t get the whole argument against it.

      Firstly, let me tackle the “homophobia” label.  Is it homophobic to be against gay couples marrying?  Yes it is, in the same way that it is racist to be against mixed-race marriages. 

      As for this notion that marriage has been unchanging that is a farce and anyone spouting that line is either very ignorant of the facts or just plain ignoring them.  Whilst it is true that gender has not changed (which given that homosexuality was only within the last few decades given legality) so much more of it has.  These include age of prospective brides and grooms, laws regarding tax breaks, rights and responsibilities, and so forth.  Some changes have been subtle, small, barely noticeable whilst others have been specific and pronounced.  Upshot is the version of marriage is constantly changing and evolving with the times.  Moreover, it does not denegrate any other marriage when a gay couple marries, as has been voiced by some rather sinister sections of the religious right.

      Also, this notion of the slippery slope simply is another fallacy.  Those wishing to have their polygamous or incestuous relationships sanctified by law have been doing so since before homosexuality was even made legal, using heterosexual marriage as their inspiration and right, not gay marriage.  Also, it is somewhat disingenuous for people to equate homosexuality, which is legal, with something illegal like incest.  And whilst polygamy in and of itself is not against the law, what we are talking about ehre are monogamous relationships, not polygamous ones.  Neither of these categories are right to be used as comparisons to homosexual couples looking to marry.  The only true and equal comparison is with heterosexual couples.

      TBC

    • Anne Stocks says:

      07:24am | 23/08/11

      Truth hurts… sometimes Love has to be tough…

      HappyCynic says… The fact is no scripture is exactly clear on the status of homosexuality…..... We meet again Happy Cynic, before I leave this topic as I’m finding it too upsetting to read the posts of those who are living in delusion and deception and even after reading just a few I just could not continue, I didn’t even read the responses to my posts after I read yours but I do feel I have now shared God’s Truth on this Topic and can say no more but of course it is their choice if even read it let alone accept it as it is yours, anyway before I go let me reassure you HappyCynic the Bible is very clear on Homosexuality as you can see below…..

      As for Homosexuals Happy Clappy lifestyle that we see at the Gay Mardi Gras and at Lay girls etc ...with hearing the statistics and having been in close contact with them for some time, I was not really surprised to find that suicidal ideation and suicide is an endemic problem amongst same-sex attracted and gender diverse people… so Happy Cynic why do you think they suicide because they feel happy and content or perhaps you assume they agree with what others are saying about them and feel shame and can’t handle it, sorry if you really do believe these are their reasons then you are deceived. Many practicing Homosexuals have Aids or related illnesses and suicide for them is a quick way out and others find that what they thought would meet their deeper needs doesn’t and the confusion and fear they feel which is not always able to be blocked out with Drugs or Alcohol and excessive immoral sex, leaves them with no alternative at least in their thinking. Then there are those who can not handle the abuse and rejection of their partners or being used as a commodity when wanted, they do not really have long term fulfilling relationships even if they say they do, in truth they never do, they just adapt. Are all these just True for Homosexuals,  no sadly also Heterosexuals living contrary to God’s guidelines will often experience much the same trauma and as we know some of them also suicide.

      It is not God’s will that anyone perishes, He Loves everybody it is our choice if we accept Him and His guidelines as it is also our choice were our eternal destination will be.

      Romans 1 :24 -27 Therefore God our Creator gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to Sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.  They exchanged the Truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served the created things rather than the Creator who is the Lord and is to be praised forever Amen.  Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their Women exchanged Natural sexual relations for Unnatural ones.  In the same way the Men also abandoned Natural relations with Women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other Men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their wrong doing.

      Thinking of you Anne

    • mel says:

      09:34am | 23/08/11

      Anne, I don’t know if your statistics are correct as you once again haven’t provided any evidence to back your statements up, but if they are, don’t you think that the cause of such depression and the terrible consequences might have something to do with the way people like you and your “so-called” christian buddies and all those other religious, or homophobic types, treat gay people. Don’t you think having their sexual preference called “unnatural” or “shameful” or “immoral” or “degrading” or “sinful”, as you have done in just one post, might make gay people suicidal? How you you like it if you were constantly referred to as being childish, dumb or stupid or foolish all the time. Would that make you feel positive about yourself? Would you start to have doubts?

      Are you so blind and self-centred that you can’t see that you were part of the problem with the depression suffered by gay people?

    • Matt says:

      12:54pm | 23/08/11

      Yet another deluded ‘christian’ full of hate and taking the bible - written by men - far too literally..

      You might like this one Anne -

      1 Timothy 2:12 - I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

      or maybe this one -

      1 Corinthians 14:34 - women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says

      So, be a nice little christian woman and shut up.  According to the bible you seem to take so literally you do not teach men or preach to them.  Unless that is you’re another hypocritical christian that picks and chooses which verse are relevant and which aren’t….

    • Katy says:

      03:05pm | 23/08/11

      Before I even start on the epic amounts of Biblical fail in your post, Anne, let me just point out a few things. The average length of a marriage in Australia is 8 years, with over 40% ending in divorce. And yes, Anne, that is all about the heterosexuals. We gays have nothing to do with those stats.

      And as for “...they do not really have long term fulfilling relationships even if they say they do, in truth they never do…”, what a load of crap. You don’t know me. You don’t know how fulfilling and loving my relationship is. You don’t know every gay person in the world and how their relationship is faring. That’s exactly the same as me saying ‘Anne doesn’t really believe in God and the Bible, she doesn’t get any fulfillment out of her religion, she just says she does, she just pretends.’

      Do you follow every word of the Bible as a literal rule book, Anne? Because the Bible has a lot of rules and regulations about things that are quite dated. For example:

      Timothy 2:9 -I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes… - Ever worn gold or pearls, Anne? Gotten your hair done? Bought a nice dress?

      Exodus 21:7 - When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. - So, you agree with the selling of children as slaves then?

      Leviticus 11:10 - And all that have not fins and scales in the seas and in the rivers of all that move in the waters and of any living thing which is in the waters. - Ever eaten a tasty, tasty lobster, Anne?

      There are so many more of these, its almost impossible to list. Haircuts, tattoos, beards, not having a beard (contradictions, oh no), bacon, planting two different crops next to each other, wearing two different fabrics at the same time… All these things have in some way been banned by words in the Bible. Unless you’re following all of these things to the absolute letter, which, judging by your previous comments, you’re most definitely not… You are as much in need of your God’s guidance as you say I am (and every other homosexual out there is).

      Remember, the Bible contains only nine admonishments to homosexuals. It contains three hundred and sixty four admonishments to heterosexuals. Obviously, your God thinks you need more of a divine asskicking than me.

    • mel says:

      05:13pm | 23/08/11

      You know, Matt and Katy, I am beginning to think than our christian friend Anne Stocks is actually a Poe. Her statements are so outrageous and over the top that I’m finding it hard to believe she can be sincere about what she writes. It has to be a parody of christian extremism. No-one could really think those things are true. Could they?

    • David says:

      05:07pm | 24/08/11

      @Anne,

      I am not an easily offended person, but to deny that the reason that gay kids are more prone to suicide is because of the persecution, ostracising, discrimination and harassment from the likes of you is the most offensive thing I have heard in a long time.

    • Matt says:

      12:44pm | 25/08/11

      No, I think you’re right Mel, poe or troll.. Scary if it’s true though.

    • AJ says:

      08:01am | 23/08/11

      To my understanding, Australia is a secular country which recognises civil marriage.  Therefore, I can see no reason to oppose legalising same-sex marriage. 

      It will not be mandatory for people to participate in same-sex marriages nor will it be mandatory for religious bodies to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies.  At the end of the day, it will directly benefit a few (those who get married), indirectly benefit a few more (the friends and family of the happily wedded couples) and disadvantage no-one.

    • Justin says:

      08:32am | 23/08/11

      Sorry.. Wisdom will always beat logic..and sarcasm…...Time we all woke up and kept marriage away from a very small self interest group who want to use it to legitemise their lifestyle choice!

    • mel says:

      09:08am | 23/08/11

      You mean religious heterosexuals? Quite right: we need to broaden the idea of marriage and not let those ideologues ruin our secular Australian society

    • podrida says:

      11:07am | 23/08/11

      I look around me and see thousands of elderly parents and grandparents. Two people who have been committed to each other, and to their children. I do not, however see any, (any!), elderly homosexuals still together with any of their partners. Why is that, I wonder. Could it be that these loving couples the homosexual lobby goes on about ad nauseum aren’t really so loving of each other after all?
      Do you know any old homosexuals that are still together after say, 40/50 years?

    • mel says:

      12:25pm | 23/08/11

      Podrida, you really aren’t with it, are you. I apologise for using an american example, but it’s the first one I thought of:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/25/nyregion/after-long-wait-same-sex-couples-marry-in-new-york.html

      ““We feel a little more human today,” Ray Durand, 68, said moments after marrying his partner, Dale Shields, 79, whom he met 42 years ago by a jukebox in a West Village bar. “

      I think that successfully demolishes your argument and it took all of, what, three seconds to find. Any other pointless objections that you might have?

    • podrida says:

      01:58pm | 23/08/11

      Mel, you had to go to the USA to find two old homosexuals who “grew old together”.  Don’t crow about the fact that this ‘one in millions’ destroys my point. I asked you if you knew any ‘commited for life homosexuals”.
      You obviously don’t. Again, the quinces lose, as usual because they have to go scurrying to the google button to find one flimsy statistic to claim justification for their abhorrent demands.
      Even your point, upon which you totally and stupidly rely is accompanied by one of the parties saying that he, and his man-lover, “feel a little more human today”.Still a long way to go to get to the real thing Mel, don’t you agree.
      And if their behaviour is “normal”, why don’t we teach our children about it in sex-ed classes? Answer that, Mel. No?

    • Ben says:

      03:21pm | 23/08/11

      Oh dear, Podrida is full of fallacy today.

      One reason you don’t see elderly gay couples is because homosexuality was considered a mental illness right up until 1984. The first state to legally allow male homosexuality only did so in 1975 (SA), with last doing so in 1997 (TAS)!  Given this, you’re going to have a hard time find a relationship that’s been in progress longer than 1975 (that’s anybody older than about 55). Then you have other factors too, oh, like there being a lot less gay people than heterosexuals, and the older generation being alone because they didn’t have an oppression-free youth in order to find a life partner.

      As for not teaching it in sex education: it’s because of people like you who kick up a stink every time anybody even suggests that homosexuality is not a choice. Try to even mention in school that it’s “okay to be gay” and listen to the wing nuts bitch and howl.

    • mel says:

      03:25pm | 23/08/11

      Really podrida, as I said, I remembered the NY example: it was easy enough to find and provide a link. And as I recall, one negative result does destroy a hypothesis. You can’t magically wave an example like that away. Well, you might, as you aren’t all that good when it comes to facts. Whether or not I personally know any gay people that have been in a 40 year long term relationship is either here nor there as I know very few couples, gay or straight, that have been married for that length of time. You wanted an example and there it is. You need another argument so you can hate gay people.

      Now, I’d be tempted to say that the lucky couple felt a little more human that day is because they were being treated like humans for once. Probably they have had their fill of ignorant, hate-filled morons yelling abuse at them for most of their lives. Morons who find difference a bit frightening and scary.

      Umm, I can’t vouch for other states but if you look at the NSW Stage 6 PDHE syllabus (p 27), you’ll find that same sex couples are actually discussed.

      http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/syllabus_hsc/pdf_doc/community-family-studies-st6-syl-from2010.pdf

      It is also an additional topic of discussion in the Yrs 7-10 syllabus too.

      As I said, you’re not very good with facts are you?

    • kate says:

      12:11pm | 24/08/11

      Michael Kirby has been with his partner since 1969.  Ever heard of him?  Google “Australian Living Treasures” if you need reminding.

      Idiot.

    • mel says:

      12:25pm | 24/08/11

      Nice one Kate. I forgot about Justice Kirby!

    • TomZ says:

      12:45pm | 23/08/11

      If “ropes can be married”, will they need a third party to tie the knot?

    • Boon says:

      03:48pm | 23/08/11

      You know what the true sign of this country’s downfall is? The hate, spite and ignorance in the replies to this article.

    • Samantha says:

      05:05pm | 23/08/11

      I rarely reply to articles on this website, but I feel I have to today. You’re a great writer, Sir, with a fantastic ability to turn a phrase. This article just made my week. I tip my hat to you!

    • Dell says:

      05:41pm | 23/08/11

      I am a female and married therefore everyone knows I have a husband.  If we also have gay marriage the whole meaning is lost - if I am married now it means I might have husband or a wife. I still remember how awkward it was to refer to partners rather than husbands and wives and how it felt like a generic no name. The meaning of the word marriage will change in our language. I like that folk know I have a husband and he likes people to know that he has a wife. Why do we have to lose something for others to gain. I think this is what people are talking about when they say it will devalue marriage to change it.  It will become a generic term.

    • mel says:

      06:50pm | 23/08/11

      OMG! The english language will change! We must preserve the purity of English from degradation! How dare those gay people have the same thing that I have! We must put a stop to people having equal rights!

      Dell, this may take the cake for the silliest argument against gay marriage ever?

    • podrida says:

      08:25pm | 23/08/11

      @Mel. You don’t have the same thing that I have. And you practicing your bent sexual habits doesn’t make you my equal. And please don’t try to convince anyone that the term ‘gay’, used in your bastardisation of our beautiful language is a progression. It utterly degrades a very meaningful, descriptive, term for, among other things, the feeling of utter delight that a child experiences during a completely happy event. It has nothing to do with sodomy, or similar other acts that you and your ilk think can be accepted as normal.
      The silliest argument ever against homosexual marriage? There is no “silly” argument against gay marriage, they all are quite sensible. Even the weakest of them.
      Instead of you lot criticising the Government for not allowing unlawful marriages to be legalised, why don’t you ask Abbott whether he agrees with the prominent homosexual Alan Jones’s sexual proclivity. After all, he and Abbott have similar thoughts on many things. Perhaps homosexual marriage is another one. Give Tony the opportunity to disassociate with the thoughts, the sexual philosophies, of this strange frequenter of pro-Abbott anti-Gillard rallies.
      Why do you attack Dell for expressing her honest, heart-felt opinion? Is she too close to what millions of Australians are also thinking? Or are you, and your fellow deviates beginning to think that repetitive nonsense like, “We are normal”, has any basis in fact. I hope not, because Dell is right, (as you know) and you are sickenly wrong, (as you also know. She is probably someone’s good mother, and you will never be. And that’s the rub, isn’t it. It’s called envy. And it is sick.

    • Ben says:

      06:41am | 24/08/11

      Dell, I highly doubt that people are referring to the word itself instead of the concept of it. You can’t keep moving the goal-posts just because people have completely debunked the idea that your marriage (i.e. your relationship itself) is somehow devalued if gays can do it too.

      That said, even if we take your proposition that it’s the word itself people are worried about, how will any of those things change for you? You won’t have to suddenly stop referring to your husband as your husband. Where do you even get that idea from? It’d ridiculous. In response to the question “are you married?” you might have to reply, “yes, I have a husband”. Oh dear, four extra words. That’s not the end of the world.

      The reason people use the term partner is typically because, well, they’re unmarried, and calling your 30+ year old de facto partner your “boyfriend” is what’s awkward. There is no gender-specific word for “de facto”. I’d love to avoid all the awkwardness and be able to call my partner my husband and have all the rights that you take for granted conferred with that simple gesture.

      Me being able to do that isn’t in any way going to stop you being able to do that too.

      And in the end, as mel above has said, the English languages changes constantly. So what? Did you know that “marriage” is already a generic term for thing joining of two anythings? As the article author wrote, you can “marry” rope. When you’re gluing things together you’re marrying them. Where the tectonic plates overlap is where they marry. In fact, it is the concept of people entering life-long relationships that stole the word “marriage” from those much more mundane uses in the first place.

    • mel says:

      09:28am | 24/08/11

      Oh poor, poor podrida, you are just losing pretty much every battle, aren’t you? Every thing you’ve said so far has been shown to be foolish and wrong, and now, you’re just ranting incoherent thoughts. It’s a little sad, really. Who cares what Tony Abbott and Alan Jones think of each other. If nothing else, they work together as a “marriage of convenience” (if you retrogrades allow people the ‘incorrect’ use of the ‘marriage’ word like that)!

      Now, as you say, Dell may be close to what millions of Australians think, but according to polls, more millions have no issue at all with same sex marriage. Also, there is no evidence that she is someone’s good mother, so your point there is invalid. Your statements that she is right and I am wrong, that I am a deviant, etc, are just your opinions not facts as you believe, so they can be discounted too. You really can’t take a trick, can you?

      Then you just start to make stuff up. I am not envious of Dell. Why should I be? Finally, though, there is one point where you are correct, and that is I will never be anyone’s mother. Fair enough, as I am a bloke.

      I’m not gay either. Surprise, you are wrong again! But my sexuality is neither here nor there in this debate.

    • grumpasaurusrex says:

      11:18am | 24/08/11

      This has to be the most selfish argument I’ve ever heard. Would you have also been suggesting that black people continue to sit at the back of the bus so that you don’t accidentally have people think you might, shock horror, somehow be one of them? ..because during segregation black people were considered “less than”, and your opinion says to me that’s how you view gay relationships. “less than”

      What you’re really getting at, is that you don’t want people to think you might have a wife instead of a husband, because to you that would be gross and unacceptable. To have someone accidentally think, even for a misguided moment, that you might be one of “them”, makes you uncomfortable. And that’s the crux of the issue - that a gay relationship is not as good as a straight one. If it was as good as a straight one, a simple misunderstanding where someone wasn’t clear if you had a wife or a husband wouldn’t carry the emotional charge that it obviously does for you.

      I’m not even going to try and bother changing your mind because logic doesn’t work on bigotry.

    • podrida says:

      01:14pm | 24/08/11

      @Mel. I say and say again that anyone, (you!), who supports deviancy is a deviate. And I didn’t say that Dell was a mother. I said “probably”, but a perfectionist like you would not have noticed that, would you.
      As to your ignorant claim that the word “marry” can be misused as in the phrase “marriage of convenience”, that’s not a misuse. Its qquite legitimate. As someone else rightly said, two ropes can be “married”. Only a self-serving idiot like you, who, like many of your kind think that a whisper means a shout would try to deny that both of the above uses of that word are descriptive of legal happenings. The “marriage” of one male bricklayer to another male bricklayer is illegal. That is, not allowed under any Australian law. The use of the word “gay” to describe what you say is okay and also to label as “gay” the sick people who do it is par for the course for those who, lacking a proper argument fall back on “equal rights”.  You have all of the rights that I have, and so do those for whom you speak. In fact you and they have more. You and they have the right to mince along with the rest of the wierdos in the “Freaks Mardi Gras” every year. What? “I do have the legal right to participate”, you say.
      Of course I do, fool. I meant the moral right.
      And what ‘poll’ tells me that homosexual marriage is supported by a majority of Australians? Who conducted the poll? When? Where? Why didn’t I and all on here get a say? You have a hissy about a lack of fact in my posts, so tell us all about this “poll”. Or was it taken in a men’s toilet somewhere at the back of the Cross?
      The ‘Pestilent priest’ and ‘Jones the drone’ aren’t important to you as to their association? Sounds right. The old ‘blind eye’ theory Eh?
      You are one sad excuse for a “bloke”.
      And don’t forget the details of that “poll”, will you.

    • mel says:

      03:15pm | 24/08/11

      Ah,  podrida, you don’t read much, do you? One of the very early posts above show the results of a Galaxy Research poll in 2009:

      http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/Galaxy200906.pdf

      Now I know that you will go on that it was commissioned by the australian marriage equality people but it was not conducted by them. If you have issues with Galaxy’s methodology, let’s hear them, but the group commissioning the study has nothing to do with the results, so you are losing another argument.

      And when did “equal rights” become a fall back position when it comes to discussing same sex marriage? It’s in fact one of the main reasons to recognise those marriages. So, once again, you lose another argument.

      And I still can’t work out by you get so worked up by the relationship between Tony Abbott and Alan Jones. I’d be tempted to say that most of us, not just me, couldn’t care less how those two conservatives feel about each other. Why do you?

      Now, you also call me “self-serving”, which one online dictionary explains is “preoccupied with one’s own interests, often disregarding the truth or the interests, well-being, etc., of others”. Now, given that I am not gay and have no interest in getting married, I can hardly be described as self serving since I my support for same sex marriage most certainly means I am interested in the well-being of others. Another epic fail, podrida.

      All too easy. It’s like shooting fish in a barrel when arguing with you. If I were you and thankfully I am not, I would stop now. You are just looking more and more foolish with every post. Certainly you are getting more agitated and we wouldn’t want you to burst a blood vessel.

    • mel says:

      03:29pm | 24/08/11

      Oh,  podrida, more information on polls that show the level of support for same sex marriage. Have you read today’s Crikey Online? It provides a rundown of recent polls:

      “Dear Sole Subscriber…

      Polls on the websites of three Liberal MPs (no longer online) showed strong support for gay marriage: Malcolm Turnbull’s website recorded 68% support, Brisbane MP Teresa Gambaro found 73% support and Julie Bishop’s poll was running as high as 80% support.

      Labor minister Tanya Plibersek said 2000 submissions to her office found support running at 80%.

      An Essential Media poll in March of this year found 49% of respondents supported gay marriage, 40% were against and 10% didn’t know.

      A Westpoll survey of 400 WA voters in December found 61% were in favour of gay marriage.

      A June Galaxy poll, commissioned by Australian Marriage Equality, found 75% of respondents agreed same-s-x marriage was inevitable.
      A Nielsen poll from November of last year found 57% of Australians supported legalising gay marriage

      A Roy Morgan poll this month for the TV show Can of Worms recorded 68% support for gay couples being allowed to marry.

      More Galaxy polling from this month found majority support for gay marriage (53%) among respondents who identified as Christian.

      A fascinating August 2010 poll by news.com.au that involved polling each electorate and contrasting the results with each local MP’s stance found that 46% overall supported gay marriage, 35% said it was between a man and a woman and 19% didn’t care.

      Adam Bandt, the Greens MP who moved the original motion, today said political leaders were “out of step with mainstream public opinion”. Today’s session of parliament proved it.”

      I’m thinking, podrida, that you might be a little out of step too. And pretty much wrong in everything you say.

    • podrida says:

      04:04pm | 24/08/11

      @Mel. So making things up to serve your argument for gay marriage is not self-serving? What a wanker.
      The polls, (that is ” a counting of heads) means that people need to be asked for their opinion. A website offered for comments, opinions, etc. is not a poll. The only poll you mention where a mixture of people were asked says, according to you, that 53% of those “polled” did not support homosexual “marriage. How can anybody support an illegal act. I’ll tell you. Your sort.
      You should also know, (I’m explaining because you are fool, and do your cause no good), that any website poll will always attract a vote in favor of those ardent supporters, (no pun intended), of one side, over the other side who can’t be bothered, because it won’t happen in this civilised country, and the few who can’t be bothered voting on such an unimportant issue. So probably only the really outraged opponents, those who have genuine health concerns, those who know that legitimacy of an immoral and illegal act tends to tear the fabric of our society, bother to get involved in this unnatural demand.
      For someone who expresses concern about the health of others, (bursting blood vessels etc), you seem to be encouraging the propensity of a much more horrendous health problem than your hypothesis warns of occuring.
      Again. The POLL that you said was “fascinating” said 53% do not support homosexual marriage. And I’m a loser? Same old line from the same old losers. Read this : There will be no homosexual marriage Act in this country. We love our kids too much for that to be allowed.
      Game - set- match.

    • mel says:

      04:50pm | 24/08/11

      Oh podrida, you just aren’t very bright, are you, and your reading comprehension skills aren’t any better.

      You said “The POLL that you said was “fascinating” said 53% do not support homosexual marriage. And I’m a loser?”

      The quote from Crikey (did you notice the quotation marks?) states “A fascinating August 2010 poll by news.com.au that involved polling each electorate and contrasting the results with each local MP’s stance found that 46% overall supported gay marriage, 35% said it was between a man and a woman and 19% didn’t care.” You said 53%, the Crikey quote said 35%. Even if you include the “don’t care” (which is not the same as “not supporting”) percentage, that comes to 54%. Wrong again. And I’m the loser.

      Podrida, please just give up, I’m getting embarrassed for you.

      And where have I made things up?

    • podrida says:

      11:26pm | 24/08/11

      @Mel This gets easier and easier. perhaps I should just withdraw and leave you to make my case as you’ve done rather well up till now.
      54% of the people, according to your figures, do NOT, (get it?), support homosexuals marrying each other in same-sex couplings. That means that 54% of people want the status quo to remain. Now do you understand? Nup? Well, as a man can only do so much and as I’m not a qualified psycho-therapist I won’t try.
      Was it the Essential Media poll you quoted that showed 49% for, 40% against and 10% don’t care? That makes 99%. Wrong! And it still means that those who want it are a minority.
      But the christians are, in the majority, in favor. Well then, now that you’ve got the other wierdos’ support you should be laughing. I suppose your lot polled the catholic church for that result, did you? Bollocks!

    • mel says:

      09:39am | 25/08/11

      Podrida, the category “don’t care” means they give no opinion on whether there should be same sex marriage or not. Given the old legal maxim of “qui tacet consentire videtur”, that is “he who is silent is taken to agree”, in fact it should be taken to mean they support such marriages. Most statisticians, however, are scrupulous and so would not assume anyon’e intention so the group is left as “don’t care”. One cannot imply, as you do, that they do not support same sex marriages.

      Also, I see you’ve tried to wave away your poor arithmetic skills too (that 53% / 54% blunder was a shocker, wasn’t it!).

      So let’s run down a list:
      ‘Marriage vows become worthless’: Podrida was wrong about that.
      ‘No old gay couples’: Podrida was wrong about that.
      ‘Same sex issues not raised in schools’: Podrida was wrong about that.
      ‘Thought I was a woman’: Podrida was wrong about that.
      ‘Said I was gay’: Podrida was wrong about that.
      ‘Didn’t believe there were polls showing support for same sex marriage’: Podrida was wrong about that.
      ‘Analysis of polls’: Podrida was wrong about that.
      ‘Arithmetic’: Podrida was wrong about that.

      ‘I will never be anyone’s mother’: Podrida was right about that!

      Not a good average so far, is it?

    • mel says:

      08:55am | 26/08/11

      And profuse and profound apologies to all language purists (I include Dell here, of course). What I should have said that the execrable podrida could not “infer” (rather than ‘imply’) that the “don’t care” group do not support same sex marriage.

      Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

    • True Blue says:

      09:20pm | 23/08/11

      Dell, you are on the right track. The English language has changed. Gay used to be used as an elegant word used in newspapers as to describe a happy event and a popular name for daughters to be named. It is never used like that now to describe an event because it used for another meaning. No one names their daughter’s Gay anymore for the same reason. Why should a selfish few devalue the word marriage. Exactly, we will lose something, so why can’t they choose another name. Because they use the excuse of ‘equal rights’ in order to bring down a institution of high regard down for their benefit. Why are there only articles pushing the bastardisation of marriage .... Thought so, no equal rights there.

    • Paulb says:

      08:11pm | 24/08/11

      Straight used to mean a line from one place to another without curve, now it means smug, self righteous people with no capacity whatsoever for critical or even logical thinking…unless it leads to a conclusion that they are special, even favoured by the invisible man in the clouds who watches us constantly and obsessively. Yes, the semantics argument always pops up in the head of some poor fool with no capacity for original thought.

    • grumpasaurusrex says:

      11:03pm | 23/08/11

      I read this article and thought it was great, but then made the mistake of reading some of the comments where people give their various views on why marriage shouldn’t be expanded to incude same-sex marriage.

      I realise a lot of people have put a great deal of time and passion into countering some of what I consider to be the frankly ridiculous arguments against marriage equality, but the more I read, the more it become crystal clear to me that despite the many and varied arguments put forth, the real underlying beliefs are that same-sex relationships are considered either outright abhorrent, or just plain old ‘not as good as’ heterosexual relationships.

      Over the last 20 years or so, rights for homosexual relationships and individuals have gradually expanded, but at the same time it’s been relatively easy for those who don’t truly accept being gay as legitimate and acceptable, to feel as though gays are getting more than enough ‘concessions’. But once the goalpost is marriage, exactly the same as them, suddenly it hits a lot closer to home. So the more of the above arguments I read, the more I realised that there’s pretty much no point in trying to refute some of the spurious logic. Because at a really basic level, I believe gay people should be afforded all the same rights, resposibilities and protections as straight people - and they don’t really believe that at all, despite any lip service to the contrary. And I just don’t know how to counter that. Perhaps the same as there are still racists around, these are the people who are the equivalent and we’re just not going to be able to change their minds.
      Personally I’m sick of being told I’m ‘less than’ so I’m choosing to shrug my shoulders and just move on, and I choose to believe that this is the last moment in our history where people can get away with saying that I shouldn’t be allowed to marry my girlfriend, the same way that no one would dare to suggest I move to the back of the bus if I was black, despite there still being a few racists around who might think it inside their head but know they can’t say it out loud any longer.

    • Jackie says:

      12:38am | 24/08/11

      Speaking of awkward, people often presume I’m heterosexual at work, school and socially, making for awkward moments where I have to ‘come out’ as a lesbian when I simply want to go about my day without having to explain myself or go into the details of my personal life.

      So Dell, if you’re worried that people might presume you’re a lesbian (shock horror) and this will make you feel awkward, I can’t say I sympathise. Look on the bright side. At least your personal arrangements have widespread social approval.

    • Kimberley says:

      12:44pm | 24/08/11

      how many of those against gays being allowed to marry would cry discrimination if the shoe was on the other foot?  how would you feel if you were told you could not marry or that your sexuality was not normal?  put yourself in their position, what are you so afraid of?

      I’m a hetrosexual woman who can see that it is blatant discrimination by hetrosexuals.  What people should be focusing on is that no matter the gender marriage is supposed to be about the love two people have for each other and their commitment towards each other.

    • Katy says:

      02:16pm | 24/08/11

      Thank you, Kimberley. Thank you.

      This is something that I have said many times to people who have asked me ‘Well why do you NEED to marry? Why can’t it just be left as is?’.

      If the shoe was on the other foot, if being heterosexual was seen as ‘wrong’ and ‘abnormal’ and marriage was denied to them by a bigoted few… Would the people screaming so loudly here about how gays shouldn’t dare even consider the idea of marriage just shrug and accept it? Or would they demand that they be made equal?

    • M B Andrews says:

      09:44pm | 25/08/11

      Saying that same-sex marriage is a good thing, is like saying same-race marriage is a good thing.

      It ain’t. Strangely enough same-sex marriage is actually anti-gender diversity.

    • Janez says:

      09:51am | 26/08/11

      Same race marriage ain’t a good thing ... Huh?!  Since when was that not a good thing?  That is borderline racism to mention race within the confines of this argument; what matter what race/s partners are ... Lost me?! 

      If gays want to marry simply they should have the same right to these ceremonies as the next person. 

      I really don’t understand why some people are getting all het up about this subject - It appears some are stuck in a time warp of their own making.  Sure, everyone is entitled to their own opinions but trying to enforce these on others is just inappropriate.

    • Ryan says:

      10:21am | 26/08/11

      I dont think ive ever commented on a Punch article before…

      But that was really good. Funny, purposeful and clever.

      Also, paraphrasing a Tweet from Thomas Jaspers; Katters HALF brother is gay. Do that bit about the sanctity of marriage again, Bob.

      Hypocrisy is rife. Im not gay but dont treat those who are any different and I’d like the law to follow suit. Whats the bit in the bible about doing unto other as you would have them do unto you?

    • M B Andrews says:

      10:42am | 26/08/11

      Janez, let me assure you, temperature is perfectly cool here. I’m not getting “het up about this subject” at all.

      It’s simple logic. Classical marriage, as the Western world has always understood it, is between two genders. You can’t be married unless there’s one of each gender in it. Therefore, gender diversity it built in.

      What’s being proposed is “genderless marriage”. An arrangement where it no longer matters what gender you are, you can marry.

      It can be two men, a man and a woman, or two women. Gender is, therefore, made redundant to the arrangement.

      Simple, really.

    • mel says:

      11:12am | 26/08/11

      MB Andrews, what are you on about? You’ll need to explain to someone as thick as me. Why do you say gender diversity is important in a marriage?

      Call me an old romantic, but surely people marry for love, and since love is blind, a marriage that is blind to gender (or ‘genderless’ as you suggest) makes perfect sense.

    • ryan says:

      11:59am | 26/08/11

      MB Andy: “Saying that same-sex marriage is a good thing, is like saying same-race marriage is a good thing. It ain’t.”

      So, why is same-race marriage a bad thing? Should I be leaving my caucasain girl for an “ethnic” lady? There’s a logic fail somewhere in there…

    • M B Andrews says:

      01:02pm | 26/08/11

      You’re quite right. There has been all kinds of diversity in history for marriage. Incest. Polygamy. Polyandry. Recently there was a woman in Holland who married herself.

      But, as per my original post, I’m talking about Classical marriage, as observed by the Western world.

      The observation about gender isn’t tricky, and you don’t have to know any history to get it. In Classical marriage, you have inbuilt gender-diversity. Because you have to have one person from each gender in it.

      If you believe that gender diversity is important in our key institutions, then you would have to insist on gender diversity in the most influential institution of them all. The institution of marriage.

    • mel says:

      01:33pm | 26/08/11

      MB, you need to broaden your perspective. You haven’t explained why we should stick with a “classical…western” marriage? Surely, we should chose the best from around the world (globalisation and all that) for an institution as important as you believe marriage to be. Certainly we should diversify such an important institution: having all our eggs in one basket, so to speak, could lead to the collapse of marriage. And so on with spurious, stupid analogies…

      And you haven’t explained to Ryan why he needs to drop his current partner and go out with ethnic women. I can see nothing wrong with same race, mixed race, same sex, mixed sex marriages in whatever wonderful, colorful combination or prermutation. You seem to think there is and you haven’t given a reason.

      I’ve just realised why I never understood your argument, MB. It’s because it doesn’t make sense.

    • M B Andrews says:

      11:44am | 26/08/11

      As one wag has said, if love is blind, why is lingerie so popular so popular?

      Nonsense aside, true love has always always worked within parameters. You need to find someone who’s from another family, for example. And someone who’s not already married.

      That’s true isn’t it?

    • mel says:

      12:18pm | 26/08/11

      Many traditional (and current) societies have no trouble with polygamy or polyandry, and I can see a case may be made for incestuous relationships being acceptable (Talking of traditions, the ancient egyptian pharoahs married within the family so incestuous relationships should be perfectly acceptable to all the conservatives out there who pine for ‘traditional’ marriage).

      So, no, your statements aren’t true.

      You still haven’t explained your statement on the need for gender diversity in a love relationship. Why?

    • Bridget Brown says:

      12:00pm | 26/08/11

      Greg, I loved this. It was such a good piece. So acute. 

      One thing though: it seems to be the new tactic by opponents of equality to paint campaigners for equality as unreasonable, or intolerant. This seems to be their new argument, because as your piece points out, none of their other arguments hold up.

      So I was taken aback that in an otherwise great piece you mentioned “the behaviour of [gay rights] lobbyists”.

      In my experience, when there has been any debate about equality, it has been opponents of law reform who have been disrespectful, intolerant and often offensive.

      In this debate, marriage equality is compared to incest and polygamy. In other debates gay men, in particular, are characterised as paedophiles. This is not respectful debate. And it’s not campaigners for equality conducting the debate in this way.

      Because they can’t make a strong argument against marriage equality, Katter, Devine and the Australian Christian Lobby (et al) are attacking supporters of equality (and people who just don’t care) by trying to paint us aggressive and or intolerant.

      As Alan Jones says (28/02/11): “We’ve just got to avoid in our criticism the personal. We stick to the policy; we never deal with the personal.”

      I think you need to watch out for their trap… even if you find gltbiqssagq to be an irritating acronym wink

      Cheers!

    • M B Andrews says:

      01:39pm | 26/08/11

      The Same Sex Marriage movement is anti-bisexual.

      It’s proposing a marriage arrangement that would, by definition, prevent a person from marrying two different people of two different genders.

    • mel says:

      01:57pm | 26/08/11

      See, MB, this is why your marriage perspective is too narrow: allow polyandry, polygamy, polyamorous marriages and all will be well.

      It seems you are slowly understanding the stupidity of the traditional, classic western view of marriage and the need for it to be broadened. Well done!

      But you still haven’t answered Ryan’s question about dropping his caucasian girlfriend for a supposedly more appropriate ethnic model. (Or are you embarrassed about your initial post?)

    • Caitlin Porter says:

      01:49pm | 26/08/11

      This is quite honestly the best article I have read all year.

    • M B Andrews says:

      03:09pm | 26/08/11

      @Ryan, I never said same race marriage is a bad thing.

      If the illustration is lost on you, what I’m saying is that SSM is anti diversity. In the same way that people who want only to have same-race marriages are anti diversity.

      If you can’t follow it, it’s because you’ve been outraged and don’t like the conclusion. It’s alright, I won’t take it personally.

    • ryan says:

      04:40pm | 26/08/11

      No, I get the illustration, it is just non-sensical. I dont support SSM (hey, that is easier to type) because I am anti-intra-relationship-diversity, I support SSM because I support relationship equality.

      Gender diversity isnt a pre-requisite to a loving relationship or a nuturing environment.

    • mel says:

      04:07pm | 26/08/11

      MB Andrews said at 09:44pm | 25/08/1: “Saying that same-sex marriage is a good thing, is like saying same-race marriage is a good thing. It ain’t.”

      What “ain’t” a good thing? Both these things? Just one of them? And which one? Your post is very unclear and obtuse to me. So what are you trying to say?

      My little brain is struggling with your reasoning here but you are saying that you think same sex marriage is a bad thing because it lacks diversity? Is that correct? Surely you then must think same race marriages are bad things too as they lack a similar diversity as same sex marriages? Is that correct? If that’s not it, what is it?

      Or are you saying that because we say one variety of marriage is good, it means we do not approve of the other one? Has anyone (other than you) said that?  Why can’t both be good or welcomed even. One could even claim that proponents of same sex marriage appreciate the diversity of options, which you do not.

      I’m very confused by your posts, not because I’m outraged but because it’s illogical.

    • Phil Brown says:

      09:52am | 27/08/11

      I think the galaxy survey is suspect that appears to pronounce that the majority of Australians want gay marriage.
      I do not believe for 1 minute that it is representative.
      Getup and Marriage Equality are lefty organisations that don’t mind twisting facts to suit their case.

      The recent feedback to pollies this week shows massive opposition except in the GAY inner city areas

      regards
      Phil

    • mel says:

      03:02pm | 29/08/11

      Phil Brown, fair enough that you have your suspicions. Why do you think Galaxy would put their name to a dodgy piece of work? Have you actually gone to the Galaxy poll and had a look at the methodology? Can you point out what you find suspicious: the questions, sampling methodology, the analysis? I’m no statistician so I can’t say if it’s suspect, so could you point out how things could have been done better?

      Or is it that you just don’t like the result?

    • M B Andrews says:

      10:57pm | 30/08/11

      I have looked at the questions. In politics, it’s what’s called a Dorothy Dixer. In court, it would be called leading the witness. Either way, the subjects are soften up to answer in a certain way.

    • mel says:

      06:25pm | 06/09/11

      Oh my, MB Andrews, you don’t like the idea of same sex marriage, do you? You act as if you are one of those crazy religious fundamentalists.

      There are two questions related to same sex marriage in the survey:

      1. Same-sex marriages are legal in a number of countries, such as the US, Canada, Spain, Belgium, and South Africa. These marriages are not recognised by Australian law. Do you agree or disagree that Australian law should recognise these marriages in the same way it recognises opposite-sex marriages from these countries?

      2. Do you agree or disagree that same sex couples should be able to marry in Australia?

      They certainly aren’t Dorothy Dixers (Macquarie Dictionary definition: “a question asked in parliament specifically to allow a propagandist reply by a minister”) and they hardly “lead the witness” (where a question suggests the answer to the witness) given they state that same sex marriage is illegal in Australia and ask whether the respondent agrees or disagrees.

      You haven’t done very well so far in your objections. Would you like to try again?

    • Sheyne says:

      05:56pm | 09/01/12

      I am always deeply amused by those anti-gay uber-liberals who claim that allowing gay couples to affirm their love and commitment to each other via the exchange of marriage vows and rings will somehow debase or devalue THEIR relationships.

      Really? I mean, I would have thought the institution of marriage would have been mocked at far greater heights by heterosexuals themselves like Tiger Woods, who showed his love and commitment and honour of the marriage tradition by humping every piece of B-grade tail that he could schedule a cladestine meeting with - a feat that could only be accomplished by the massive team of probably also heterosexually-married assistants and managers he had working for him.  We could also bring up the heterosexual Britney Spears and her two failed marriages and Drew Barrymore with her 5 fiances and 2 marriages.

      I might be spitballing here, but wouldn’t any one of those 3 completely-off-the-top-of-my-head suggestions ACTUALLY debase the institution of marriage far more than two people who exchange vows who happen to have the same “bits” under their clothing?? 
      Not all heterosexual marriages end in divorce - yes.  But a lot do. The same as I’m willing to wage that not all homosexual marriages will end in divorce. But some will.  Won’t it be easier when we can just inform the public on statistics about MARRIAGES without feeling the need to make a commentary on whether they’re boys, girls, boys & boys, girls & girls or whatever?  What about PEOPLE. Cause isn’t that what we all are anyway??!?!?!?!?

      A bit of sanity, please.  I don’t care who you love, so long as its not a child or an animal or somebody ELSE’s person.  One thing is for sure, if there IS a God, then I’m sure he’ll back the person who lives with love in their heart rather than the person who is heterosexually married and pissing all over a couple’s right to be wedded with the person they love.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

@ToryShepherd there's always time for Din Tai Fung.

ToryShepherd

@drpiotrowski will be there just in time for Din Tai Fung

Daniel Piotrowski

@ToryShepherd I hope that's in your piece tomorrow. Also - are you coming over this week or laaaaaater?

ToryShepherd

@drpiotrowski yes, Snowtown Abbey should be given an entirely segregated feed...

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Deep down we’re all unionists, even the haters

Deep down we’re all unionists, even the haters

Bill Kelty made a memorable speech last week. Addressing the ACTU Congress Dinner in Sydney, the legendary…

Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia…

Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia…

Speaking of yourself in the third person is usually a sign that you’re suffering from delusions…

South Australia. It’s the middle bottom bit.

South Australia. It’s the middle bottom bit.

If South Australia had just arrived in the world, red and wrinkled and mewling, what would we call it?…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

241 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter