There’s a good reason marriage is a hetero thing

Jeremy says:

07:56am | 29/06/11

This.

Tim doesn’t really believe that marriage is purely for the purpose of procreation, or he’d demand that it be withheld from, say, post-menopausal women. He doesn’t, because he doesn’t really believe it.

Maria says:

08:05am | 29/06/11

Good point bec, and further to that I think on the Basis of Mr Cannon’s argument that we should legislate:
a) any couple who mary and do not procreate, be forced to divorce;
b) any couple who mary and have children should be unable to divorce; and
c) any couple who are not married and choose (or not choose) to procreate should be forced to mary.
HEAVENS FORBID our FLOURISHING society permit two long term committed people to mary, they might actually be able to love within their vows and make all these heterosexual divorcees look bad.

bec says:

08:41am | 29/06/11

Of *course* he doesn’t believe it. It’s the typical goalpost-shifting that these numpties are prone to use. It’s just a convenient little ideological place-holder while he scurries to find something new and less shitty.

Today it will be “won’t somebody PLEASE think of the children!” Tomorrow, after everyone laughs at him for a basic logic-fail that even a six year old child could observe, he’ll pull out another ass-backwards canard like “churches will be forced to perform gay marriages and let the gays have sex on altars”, or “but then we will have to let paedophiles marry children. DENNIS FERGUSON PURPLE MONKEY DISHWASHER!”

Enough of this. I quote from the esteemed Jersey Shore: “I need a mind-condom. I’m being mind-fucked.”

Blazes says:

09:26am | 29/06/11

@bec, you have completely missed the point.

Firstly, the point is heterosexual relationships as a whole, not any given one relationship, are an essential part of society by their very physical nature. The principle that heterosexual couples make a unique contribution to society is indisputable, and marriage is a recognition of this. Furthermore, it is ridiculous to say that any aspect of our understanding of marriage depends on all marriages adhering to that idea. For example, we all recognise marriage as involving love. But many marriages don’t really involve love (some involve domestic violence and even murder), but that doesn’t mean we can’t say love is important to marriage. The argument that procreation is unrelated to marriage, simply because some married couples don’t produce children, is ludicrous.

Besides, if you accept that the ability to procreate is irrelevant to marriage, then there are no logical reasons whatsoever as to why marriage should be a sexual relationship (rather than a non-sexual relationship, such as between two siblings), a relationship between two people (as opposed to three or more in a polygamous relationship), or a legally recognised and regulated relationship (since other forms of friendship aren’t legally recognised or regulated). Supporters of gay marriage have always failed to provide a coherent definition of marriage which explains these restrictions. The current definition is the only coherent, logical definition of marriage.

Tim says:

09:36am | 29/06/11

Bec,
Why the hate?
The author is just exhibiting the same logical tapdancing as you did the other day to justify your position of not accepting polygamous or incestuous marriages.
Sure,
according to the author’s logic couples who had no intention of having children would be banned from marriage but the change would have adverse affects of discriminating against people with genetic defects, diseases or injuries and would be hard to implement.
This would not be morally or legally acceptable and there is no public support for it.
Therefore we should leave things as they are.
I am sure with your logical consistency you would agree.

bec says:

09:40am | 29/06/11

Hey, if people in a non-sexual relationship want to have this legally recognised for all the legal and financial benefits that go along with it, why the hell shouldn’t they be able to? You’re right, I can’t think of an argument against it. Why stop there? Why not allow two mates to be able to adopt or parent a child? I’m struggling to see a downside. It would certainly be more harmonious and stable for a child to be brought into a relationship where their parents have 20+ years of solid friendship than to be brought into a quickie shotgun marriage with two immature parents in their early twenties or teens.
Polygamy is inherently problematic for a number of reasons; firstly, that both parties to a marriage deserve the right to determine if a marriage is monogamous or not (and what happens if you have two people who disagree?); secondly, that it can be fraudulent or otherwise nullifying the consent that is required to initially enter into a relationship, and thirdly because it’s completely tricky logistically in a way that a two-person relationship isn’t simply due to the fact it’s the current model we have. How do we determine taxation or inheritance laws? How do we determine who gets end of life decision making powers? If disagreements arise in a two-person relationship, it’s even more problematic in a 3+ relationship.

sproket says:

09:45am | 29/06/11

@Blazes Sorry to break it to you, but you just made the perfect argument for gay marriage.
Ta.

Bobster says:

10:08am | 29/06/11

@ Maria,

The real worry is Tim most likely believes that all of your points should be enshrined in law - he just knows he can’t bring it up, you know, ‘cause of the politics of momentum and all.

marley says:

10:19am | 29/06/11

@Blazes - but the logic here is that marriage is a “solemn and binding” institution which should not be tampered with.  Well, that kind of ignores the divorce rate, doesn’t it?  My mortgage was more solemn and binding (and longer-lasting) than half the marriages these days. 

Marriage is not an institution fixed in stone.  It has changed over the centuries and amongst different religions and cultures.  That it is defined here in Australia as a union of a man and a woman, doesn’t mean that that definition is either universal or immutable. 

And to argue that because something was seen in a certain light a hundred years ago by the Church, it must therefore be seen in the same light a hundred years later by the State, seems to me to be a logical fallacy of the first order.

Pandora says:

10:29am | 29/06/11

@Blazes
Your second paragraph says “Besides, if you accept that the ability to procreate is irrelevant to marriage, then there are no logical reasons whatsoever as to why marriage should be a sexual relationship”
How do you justify this position? By your logic sex is either only about procreation or it becomes irrelevant. If you have ever had, or would ever have, sex for pleasure within in the confines of a marriage then you are at odds with your own argument. It is almost never about procreation, mostly it is about fun, communication and an expression of love for your partner.

Catching up says:

10:30am | 29/06/11

So if children do not come along, the marriage does not exist any more.

What are we to think of the ever increasing number of children born to parents that do not see marriage important to their parenthood.

I am sure the children do not care whether their parents are married or not.

How do they who say marriage is a religous act, explain why a greater number by-pass the church to have civil services.

I believe that the Catholic saw the sacrament of marriage being between two people that at the best was blessed by the church.

Marriage first gained popularity by the ruling class to protect their wealth.

The only role children played, was who would take over when the ruler dies.

D says:

10:31am | 29/06/11

Blazes -

There is nowhere in the definition of marriage that states that the participants must be in a sexual relationship. As it stands, people can marry their friends and have that relationship recognised, as long as those friends are of the opposite sex. People can marry for the purposes of getting favourable immigration treatment, as long as those people are of the opposite sex. Two gay people can marry each other as a political stunt even though they are of the opposite sex and consider any sexual relationship with each other to be abhorrent. People can marry for whatever reason they want, they don’t have to be in a sexual relationship to do so. Nobody nullifies their marriage because they don’t sleep with each other and don’t procreate as a result - and they haven’t done since no-fault divorce was introduced.

If marriage were truly about procreation, then it would be limited to those who are able and willing to procreate. Too bad if you need a surrogate, a sperm donor or an egg donor to conceive, too bad if you’re post-menopausal, under this thinking you can’t get married either. Society doesn’t frown on two 90-year-olds getting married because they couldn’t possibly produce children - quite often it makes the news as a feel-good story.

As it currently stands, marriage is simply limited to one man and one woman who both are over the age of 18 (except in limited circumstances), and who both give free and willing consent to be married. Procreation is not a prerequisite. Nor is sex.

The problem most people have with polygamy is around the issue of consent. Either because it’s largely practised by people whose religion allows them to marry people under the age of consent, or where a young girl just over the age of consent is married to an older man for religious reasons and not because she actually freely consents to, or because only one of the three parties to the polygamous marriage actually knows they are polygamous - the other two think they are monogamously married to that person and that person is monogamously married to them only, so the other two have not actually consented to be in a polygamous marriage. If the consent issue were sorted, and all three participants were willing to stand together and honestly and openly vow that they all wish to be married to each other, then I personally don’t see the problem. That’s just my view though, others may feel differently.

My major point is that gay activists shouldn’t have to make the case for every other combination and permutation of relationship in order to have their own case heard. Any changes should be decided on their own merits, and not on the merits of every other relationship that someone somewhere can think of. Just because society isn’t ready to recognise another form of relationship as a marriage, or has a valid reason (eg consent) not to recognise another form of relationship, then it doesn’t mean that a different type of relationship can’t be considered a marriage.

However, if the only reason society puts up to limit marriage to heterosexuals is that gay couples can’t procreate, well, tell that to my same-sex partner, who is three weeks away from giving birth to our child. Yes, I say our child - I am married to my wife (in a NZ ceremony), I was with her and consented to the procedure that resulted in our child’s conception, I am committed to providing financially and emotionally for my wife and our child, my state has just recognised my right to be on the birth certificate as a parent, and no court in Australia would currently uphold parenting rights in our sperm donor. If I was a man who had a low sperm count and needed a donor to conceive a child with his wife, then nobody would dare say that the donor and not I was the parent of that child. Think about why you honestly feel differently because I am a woman - if it’s because I physically don’t have the sperm to provide to conceive the child, well, neither would I if I were an infertile man.

b says:

10:40am | 29/06/11

@ Blaze: A good comment Blaze.
“Besides, if you accept that the ability to procreate is irrelevant to marriage, then there are no logical reasons whatsoever as to why marriage should be a sexual relationship (rather than a non-sexual relationship, such as between two siblings), a relationship between two people (as opposed to three or more in a polygamous relationship), or a legally recognised and regulated relationship (since other forms of friendship aren’t legally recognised or regulated). ”

The natural expectation is for a heterosexual couple to procreate unless there is a medical problem for not.  That is inherent in this article above and mostly understood by intelligent people. Those who do not choose to have children is a personal decision by heterosexual couples for what ever reasons. The Homosexuals do not fit into any of this. There are variables in heterosexual union subject to biological reasons but all the same they are in normal situations is a union where procreation is expected unless it is a medical problem or an economic consideration. marriage breakups etc are another subject of the fallibility of the human race which need to be addressed.

It is funny calling them “Gay Couples” for such a term was always from time immemorial was in reference to heterosexual married people. There may come a time when three homosexuals may want to marry, should we call them “Gay Triple”?

Tim says:

11:06am | 29/06/11

D,
so you think being gay is equivalent to having a genetic defect or a disease.
Nice.

Bev says:

11:19am | 29/06/11

Catching up says:10:30am | 29/06/11

I am sure the children do not care whether their parents are married or not.
You will find they DO prefer their biological parents to bring them up.

mike j says:

11:26am | 29/06/11

bec, how do you propose to limit marriage only to fertile heterosexual couples who commit to having a child? Making them sign a binding legal contract to conceive is commoditising human life, and the best medical tests can’t prove fertility with any real certainty. The logistics of allowing ‘only heteros who can breed’ to marry are absurd, and your arguments are spurious in the extreme. Why you insist on flogging them, I don’t know, but you are a constant source of amusement.

Making a social distinction between heterosexuals couples, who can and do breed together 95% of the time, and homosexual couples, who cannot breed together under any circumstances, is simple, clean, logical, functional, and consistent not just with public opinion in this country, but across the world.

If you can’t acknowledge this simple truth then say goodbye to your credibility.

Blazes says:

11:28am | 29/06/11

@bec ok so you’re confirming what I’m saying: the logical extension of gay marriage is to allow non-sexual relationships, such as between two siblings, to be recognised as marriage. In which case, gay marriage supporters should be honest and stop acting as though the only issue here is whether gays should be allowed to be married.

@pandora my point is that gay marriage activists always push gay marriage, but not marriage for non-sexual relationships, such as between two siblings. Now, the only justification for saying that marriage is a sexual relationship is that sexual relationships can contribute something to societies which non-sexual relationships physically can’t. The physical nature of heterosexual relationships, i.e. organic bodily union through coitus, is inherently linked to procreation and part of the natural cycle of life. Gay relationships obviously can’t make this contribution due to their physical nature.

If we have open slather on marriage and make it recognise every conceivable type of relationship, then it will completely lose its significance and there is no point in having it.

Bev says:

11:37am | 29/06/11

Catching up says:10:30am | 29/06/11
Marriage first gained popularity by the ruling class to protect their wealth.

What a load of tosh.  Marriage existed long before christianity and not just for the wealthy. Pagan Vikings no matter what their class (except thales=slaves) all married and I will concede you a point though marriage were more about assets than love.

The only role children played, was who would take over when the ruler dies.
Again a load of tosh. They recognized children were best brought up by their biological parent in a stable union. Plus that children would help around the farm/business and support their parents in old age.

Mat says:

11:37am | 29/06/11

So I guess I should get a divorce from my wife as we aren’t able to have kids? No reason for us to be married if we can’t procreate.

Leah says:

11:41am | 29/06/11

you guys are reading way too much into this.

Just because procreation is the *primary* reason for marriage does not mean you prevent people who’d otherwise socially and legally be allowed to marry, from doing so, just because they can’t procreate. Procreation is a big reason for marriage, sure. But if you look at the definitions of who is allowed to marry, in most circumstances you’d find it includes criteria such as members of the opposite sex, over the age of 18 (or in some cases 16), not too closely related, not already married, etc. So people who can’t have kids but otherwise fit those criteria shouldn’t be denied marriage. Procreation is a big reason *for* marriage, but it is not a criteria of marriage. The criteria of marriage is to facilitate procreation.

Why don’t we allow people to marry if they are too closely related? Because it would lead to deformed offspring.
Why don’t we allow people to marry if they’re already married? Because it would be divisive within the existing (and potentially new) families. What if the father with two wives ends up favouring one wife, and therefore the children of that wife? It’s not conducive of a good family environment for the children.

All the criteria of marriage are shaped towards creating a good environment to raise children in. Sure, some people may not use marriage for procreation. But that’s what the criteria of marriage is based upon. If you’re going to change the ‘opposite sex’ rule “because people get married without procreating anyway”, then you may as well change the “not already married” and “not too closely related” rules too.

Fred Phillips says:

11:42am | 29/06/11

“Making a social distinction between heterosexuals couples, who can and do breed together 95% of the time, and homosexual couples, who cannot breed together under any circumstances, is simple, clean, logical, functional, and consistent not just with public opinion in this country, but across the world.

If you can’t acknowledge this simple truth then say goodbye to your credibility.”

Sorry but a majority of people support gay marriage in this country, so they disagree with you. It’s simple, clean ,logical and consistent to you, but not to a majority of your fellow countrymen. To them it is completely pointless and discriminatory.

Incidentally, do you have any arguments against gay marriage?

D says:

11:59am | 29/06/11

@ Tim - at no way and at no time did I ever say that. I can’t even understand how you twisted my words that way.

If it’s because I equated the things I do for my wife and child to things that an infertile man would do for his wife and child, that is an extremely long bow you’ve drawn - and a very offensive one at that.

I have no sperm. An infertile man has no sperm. That’s the medical impediment to having a child with our wives that both of us share.

I do not have a medical impediment because I am a lesbian and nor did I ever intend to say that.

I expected a range of comments about how my parenting couldn’t equate to a man’s because I’m a woman, and I was ready to deal with that. But your gross distortion of my argument has absolutely floored me.

Dave says:

11:59am | 29/06/11

This article is so full of holes it borders on ridiculous.

bec says:

12:33pm | 29/06/11

I… er, really, mike j? Do I need to set aside a dollar a day to sponsor some reading comprehension classes for you? I’d do it myself as a professional in the area, but I have this strict policy against associating with the terminally unpleasant.

I see you were intellectually unable to respond to my response to you yesterday. I am sorry that your parents didn’t spend enough money or time on your education when you were young.

No everyone says:

12:40pm | 29/06/11

You will find they DO prefer their biological parents to bring them up. - Bev

I know a number of people including myself that would disagree with that statement. A large number.

Nafe says:

12:46pm | 29/06/11

Fred Phillips, i dont agree that the majority agree with you. The poll mentioned was about if Gay Marrage will be inevitable. If anyone answered the questions honsetly then yes you would have to answer in the affermitave.

Minority lobby groups and the minority party the Greens have ballance of power in the senate and the House of Reps, their policies will be inplemented and there isn’t a darn thing the majority can do about it.

Jem says:

01:00pm | 29/06/11

@Bev:

“You will find they DO prefer their biological parents to bring them up. “

No they don’t.  Don’t presume to speak for me.  I’ve met my biological parents and I am profoundly glad I was adopted and raised by my parents instead.  You have no idea how much I love my family and am thankful I wasn’t raised by my biological parents.

Bev says:

01:12pm | 29/06/11

@Jem One swallow does not a spring make.

Tim says:

01:16pm | 29/06/11

But D,
that’s exactly what you are doing.
You are equating your situation with that of an infertile man.
You do not have any medical impediment to having children with your partner, it is a biological certainty that you can’t.
Unless you believe that being gay is equivalent to having a defect then your comparison fails.

Bev says:

01:16pm | 29/06/11

I know a number of people including myself that would disagree with that statement.
A large number. A percentage or a study perhaps? The studies I have seen say different. You cannot extapolate you position to all children.
Perhaps I should have said a large majority.

mike j says:

01:23pm | 29/06/11

“Sorry but a majority of people support gay marriage in this country”

You have evidence for this? I suppose you’re going to cite the recent Galaxy Poll, commissioned by Australian Marriage Equality and Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, that says 75% of people think same-sex marriage is ‘inevitable’ as evidence of people supporting it.

If Australian Marriage Equality and Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays thought the majority of people supported gay marriage, they would have asked ‘do you support gay marriage?’, and not if people thought it was ‘inevitable’. Typical manipulation of a survey item to support a predetermined position.

By this logic, the majority of Australians support death and taxes, too.

How’s your credibility, Fred Phillips?

Simon says:

01:29pm | 29/06/11

There is nothing stopping any gay couple from starting a Family. If your a girl, it doesn’t take much to get pregnant and requires no permission. Gay men will need to adopt but what’s the difference? Two loving parents are better than none.

Marriage does not belong to rthe churches and has not done so since Federation in this country. Marriage is whatever society defines it to be. A society that does not change will die off, as history demonstrates.

Benevolent Rapscallion says:

01:32pm | 29/06/11

@ Bev “You will find they DO prefer their biological parents to bring them up. “

Actually there are a lot of us who prefer to be raised by someone else other than our biological parents. Being heterosexual doesn’t guarantee that they can be good parents, or spouses for that matter. Thankfully, being raised by someone who wasn’t my biological parent resulted in me not being as screwed up as either of them.

Jem says:

01:38pm | 29/06/11

@Bev

If you bothered to read the comment a couple above mine, you’ll see I’m not the only one.

Are you adopted Bev?  Is there some gap in your life that you feel being adopted has created?

You cannot speak for a whole group of people, just as I cannot.  Adoption is a very individual reaction, there’s a whole lot of variables that give totally diffrerent outcomes on how a person feels about it.  Some people feel the absence of a biological connection keenly, others like myself do not.

You have no place speaking for me nor any right to tell me how I feel isn’t relevant simply because it doens’t fit with your view.

Fred Phillips says:

01:38pm | 29/06/11

Nafe, you’re wrong. A majority of Australians support gay marriage. Google “majority Australians support gay marriage” for all the vidence you could possibly need.

Direct says:

02:13pm | 29/06/11

Jem, the plural of anecdote is not data.

Joe says:

02:19pm | 29/06/11

It is not that hetero couples must have children, but that a permanent hetero relationship is the right place to have children.

Nafe says:

02:28pm | 29/06/11

@Fred Phillips, Point taken and maybe my views are in the minority of the Nation. I still have my fiew and am free to hold it.

But My view will make zero difference in what happens anyway. Gay marrage IS inevitable, and i will be supprised if its not brought in within the next 18 months.

At the End of the day Gillard needs a policy success and all the minority lobby groups want this to occur.

Now i think about it further, I couldn’t care less if it happens or not, doesn’t effect me one jot.

mike j says:

02:34pm | 29/06/11

Fred Phillips, you incorrigible idiot, “Google it” is not a reference. If there is so much data out there for whatever you are claiming, how about YOU FUCKING FIND IT and report back to us.

Bev says:

03:01pm | 29/06/11

Jem says:01:38pm | 29/06/11
Are you adopted Bev?  Is there some gap in your life that you feel being adopted has created?
No I’m not to answer your question. I have no objection to adoption by hetrosexual couples, actualy if some of the single mothers gave their children up for adoption they would have a far better chance at life. I would however hate to go back to the times when babies where literally ripped from their mothers arms at birth.  Since adopting couples have to jump through so many hoops there is an extremely good chance the children they adopt will have a good upbringing.  I am however against
homosexual couples adopting. Goodness knows there are a enough hetrosexual couples wanting to adopt who cannot. Ask your self a question if we have homosexual marriage would they be satisfied? I suggest not.  Children will be the next discrimination cab off the rank.
Think, we changed family law in 1975.  It was supposed to make society better according to feminists and have little effect, just a little change to the wording to make divorce easier for couples.  The unintended (feminists knew but didn’t tell the rest of us) and unwanted consequences as they say is history.

mike j says:

03:17pm | 29/06/11

“I see you were intellectually unable to respond to my response to you yesterday.”

Your response? bec, I was the only person you didn’t respond to.

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/when-it-comes-to-marriage-justice-should-be-apolitical/

You covered incest, bigamy, polygamy, bestiality, and paedophilia… all easy targets, but none of which I ever mentioned. Well done, genius.

Remember, bec, if you’re paying a dollar a day for reading comprehension lessons, you’re probably getting what you pay for.

bec says:

03:38pm | 29/06/11

Mike, those were the ones I specifically mentioned that people continually drew irrational parallels to. You then said I hadn’t adequately explained myself. I went into detail on that.

You also failed to recognise the logical extension I was drawing in this initial post here today. Which I suppose is fair enough, given your predisposition to miss the fucking point.

If I’ve failed to respond to someone, name their argument specifically. I responded to Blazes here adequately, and I’ll get around to anybody else’s too.

Now look. I don’t mind if you’re weak of constitution and you get squicked easily by the gays. I mean, I’ll make fun of you lots for being a big douchey baby who’s probably afraid of lint traps catching fire and other improbabilities, but I’ll actually respect you for having the ability to admit to your fears. But at the moment, you throw up BS argument after BS argument to effectively say “fuck you, I got mine” to the gay community. There’s no impetus for you other than not wanting gay people to join a club you feel you are eminently only deserving of being in.

spider says:

03:42pm | 29/06/11

Yeah, Bec said what I thought.  All I read in that article was “blah blah blah I really don’t like gays getting married so I’ve thought up a nice excuse why, even though it doesn’t really work with everything and is quite behind the times.”

Blazes says:

03:50pm | 29/06/11

As it seems the central area of debate is around the role of procreation and marriage, I would point everyone to this great article explaining the link between marriage and procreation.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/03/2638

mike j says:

04:19pm | 29/06/11

Matt, 09:35am, 27/06/11: “Unless Julia can come up with a rational, logical, non-religious reason as to why they won’t allow same sex rights, then she will again be called out for lying.”

bec, 09:44am, 27/06/11: “There is no logical argument against [gay marriage]. You’re right.”

mike j, 12:11pm, 27/06/11: “Gay partnerships are anti-evolutionary, contribute nothing to the gene pool, generally aren’t involved in rearing future members of society and, as such, don’t deserve the same social recognition as heterosexual partnerships. Also, as homosexuality is partially a learned behaviour, in the context of the above, it shouldn’t be actively encouraged or promoted as being an ‘equal’ lifestyle. How’s that for a rational, logical, non-religious argument?”

Feel free to quote where you addressed any of the points I made in that post.

You didn’t. You had a big wank over whatever the other muppets were going on about, ignored me completely (didn’t even say my name), and now you’re claiming that I was the one who didn’t respond to you, casually dismissing my arguments (which you haven’t addressed) as ‘BS’, making your ubiquitous and unfounded accusations of homophobia, trivialising the very real dangers of lint fires, and presuming to understand my motivation for objecting to unfounded homosexual entitlement.

That’s our bec. The lights are on, but she’s still just a woman.

Matt says:

04:53pm | 29/06/11

lol @ mike j… someone’s a little cranky .  You’ve alienated the homosexuals - we’re glad, and now you’re aiming for all women?

‘That’s our bec. The lights are on, but she’s still just a woman.’

Keep going mate, your train-wreck of an argument gets more entertaining the more you reply..

Jem says:

05:09pm | 29/06/11

@ Direct

Bec didn’t provide data, just opinion regarding the thoughts of adopted childrens’ preferences on who raises them.  I believe no one can speak for adopted children as a group, because the experience is too individual.  I based that on personal experience and interaction with other adopted children, including my siblings.  It is my opinion, not data.  I’m afraid you’re confusing the discussion.

@ Bev

I agree with you regarding not going back to the time when children were forceably removed from their mothers and put up for adoption.  That was a terrible thing.  I also think it is a shame adoption is now an option peopel seem to ignore.  It’s either abortion or single parenthood.  The attitudes towards putting a child up for adoption seem to have shifted to it being a negative thing to do.  Abandoing the child, being unnnatural.  I think it’s admirable to know you can’t raise the child properly in your current circumstances and give another couple the opportunity.  Screening processes are pretty solid, lots of hoops to jump through.

One benefit of being adopted is knowing you were wanted, your family went through a lot of effort to be able to have you.

I disagree with adoption being restricted to heterosexual couples only.  Homosexual couples are already having children.  I’m not sure denying any child the option of a loving family is a good thing for society.  Foster parenting for example is something any couple, or even single person, can do and makes a huge impact on society in a good way.

Mark J says:

05:10pm | 29/06/11

Oh dear, Mike J, I cringed when I realised our names are similar. You made 2 points:

mike j, 12:11pm, 27/06/11: “Gay partnerships are anti-evolutionary, contribute nothing to the gene pool, generally aren’t involved in rearing future members of society and, as such, don’t deserve the same social recognition as heterosexual partnerships. Also, as homosexuality is partially a learned behaviour, in the context of the above, it shouldn’t be actively encouraged or promoted as being an ‘equal’ lifestyle. How’s that for a rational, logical, non-religious argument?”

Firstly, its nice to see that you and Hitler share a passion for eugenics? You really believe that “survival of the fittest” actually works in a modern society? Well it doesnt, because we protect the health and wellbeing of heterosexual couples as well as their right to procreate even if they would be contributing negatively to societies “gene pool” (probably as your parents did).

Secondly, you describe homosexuality as a “learned” behaviour that shouldnt be encouraged by society. Im sorry, but what credible research do you have to back that up? Because as far as I’m aware, science has not yet been able to support this. In fact, it mostly points in the opposite direction as it being a natural behaviour (as opposed to one that is nurtured). Still further, your points contradict one another, you talk of the gays affecting gene pool then move on to “encouraging” impressional children to become gay. Make up your mind!

bec says:

05:16pm | 29/06/11

Right. Well let’s dance now then, buddy boy.

***Gay partnerships are anti-evolutionary, contribute nothing to the gene pool, generally aren’t involved in rearing future members of society and, as such, don’t deserve the same social recognition as heterosexual partnerships.***

Plenty of partnerships are anti-evolutionary. By logical extension, you could say that partnerships between people with strong genetic markers for terminal congenital illnesses are anti-evolutionary. Or marriages between older people who are past the age of fertility. Why do those relationships deserve privileging over gay and lesbian couples?

More to the point, I think that public debate indicates that many gay and lesbian people are very keen to be involved in the childrearing process. They are legally allowed to act as foster parents in the state sector, and from professional experience, they are extremely involved in the educational sector (including a large number in the early childhood sector). There are plenty more who raise children from prior marriages with new partners who succeed well. There are legal blockages against some forms of surrogacy, access to IVF and adoption, which prevents many more of them from taking an active involvement in the childrearing process.

I find it pretty incomprehensible that sexuality is prioritised as a qualifying criteria for parenthood above other things that are proven to have a far bigger impact on a child’s development. You say draw a line in the sand, but how does that help the six year old son of my crack-addicted former neighbours? How does that help the kid whose straight parents only had him for the baby bonus? When there are children who don’t have biological parents who are able to take care of them, as there are thousands of children who fit this bill in state guardianship, why should a well-educated gay couple in their late thirties who own their own home in a safe area be disadvantaged in comparison to a pair of intellectually immature heterosexual people?

You can’t criticise people for not being involved in “rearing future members of the community” when there are legal blockades in their way from doing so.

***Also, as homosexuality is partially a learned behaviour, in the context of the above, it shouldn’t be actively encouraged or promoted as being an ‘equal’ lifestyle.***

I certainly don’t know enough about genetics to claim whether it’s heritable or learned behaviour. I personally don’t think it matters whether it is natural or a genuine choice. I think someone who is gay or lesbian could argue that they didn’t choose to be a certain way that has had them excluded from their own families or sacked from their jobs. But you are conflating legalising gay marriage with “encouraging and promoting”. It is unlikely that people are going to choose to be gay simply because they’re provided with the opportunity to marry. If the matter were decriminalisation, then sure, people would probably feel safer to come out of the closet, but given that gay and lesbian people in Australia have a comparatively safe experience of it (albeit unequal and discriminative) it’s not going to turn anyone who is straight gay. It’s certainly not turning me gay or making me question my sexuality.

The arguments for allowing people to express legal sexualities that don’t actually harm anybody are actually stronger than the arguments against. The mental health cost of forcing people to live lives that they don’t feel comfortable with can’t be understated.

I might agree with your arguments if it could be demonstrated that homosexuality between two consenting adults in a relationship that is otherwise legal (i.e. does not violate laws of age of consent or incest as per state or commonwealth laws) causes actual community harm. What is the harm? I personally see harm from certain religious groups who are happy to accept taxpayer dollars from gay and lesbian people who then use that money to lobby governments to discriminate against those same people. I see harm from the interference of any religion on what is effectively (and has always been, if you have any understanding of history) a civil and secular institution designed for the transfer of ownership of property and wealth.

If I have failed to answer anything clearly, please point it out. In my defence, I have been drinking since noon.

David says:

05:19pm | 29/06/11

All a bit of a giggle really. Comparing gay and Hetero marraiges is a bit like comparing Holdens and Fords, both badly made and designed, both break down too often and if you lose control of either the kids could get hurt. Not to mention that getting into one is far too easy. The Gays will find out that the only difference between getting rid of a car and getting out of a marraige is that it costs far more to get out of marraige, you mark my words. What sort of impact is having to pay out the spouse at the end of a bust going to have on on the sale of flanno’s and leather chaps boys and girls, hey, hey? You’re all nuts, stay single, stay focussed, stay free. Stay affluent!!!

Fred Phillips says:

05:35pm | 29/06/11

“Fred Phillips, you incorrigible idiot, “Google it” is not a reference. If there is so much data out there for whatever you are claiming, how about YOU FUCKING FIND IT and report back to us.”\

Absuive AND lazy. You’re all class, mike j. Here you go. Enjoy.

http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/newopinionpoll.htm

Fred Phillips says:

05:39pm | 29/06/11

“If Australian Marriage Equality and Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays thought the majority of people supported gay marriage, they would have asked ‘do you support gay marriage?’, and not if people thought it was ‘inevitable’. Typical manipulation of a survey item to support a predetermined position.

By this logic, the majority of Australians support death and taxes, too.

How’s your credibility, Fred Phillips?”

Hey mike j, having fun beating up your strawman? I’m not relying on the poll referred to in the article, and didn’t say I was either. There’s been other polls, you know - ones in which Australians were asked if they support gay marriage. How’s YOUR credibility?

UlyssesBlue says:

06:27pm | 29/06/11

Bec has a very valid point. Marriage is not about procreation. It is about the relationship between the two people involved. When a heterosexual couple decide to get married, is it because of the love they feel for each other, not because they think it’s time to have kids. Procreation may or may not subsequently happen, but this is usually unrelated to the reasons the couple have married.

This article is just a bunch of propaganda, and its author is blind to the realities of life.

Bev says:

07:18pm | 29/06/11

@Jem So it seems we agree on most things except one. Good. I will continue to argue against homosexual adoption. Particulary since there is already a big queue out there of hetrosexual couples.  I still maintain that homosexual couples (if marriage gets up) will mount a frenzied drive to place themselves at the head of the queue. They have form.

mattkas says:

07:48pm | 29/06/11

The moderators are now allowing bloggers to use obscene language in response to Punch articles now. I think that this lowering of standards is very unfortunate indeed and should be rectified. If this trend continues, I won’t continue my readership. Thank you.

Kathy says:

08:06pm | 29/06/11

Thank goodness for David at 5.19…hilarious!!  A good sense of humour does put things in perspective.

Bev says:

08:31pm | 29/06/11

@Jem Just one final comment.  I am no expert however since we have 3 children and 8 grandchildren (2 of which I had to fight for custody in the family court due to circumstances) I would say I do know something about children.  Fostering? Many do a good job others are in it for the money. We fostered 3 teenage “ferals” even though we had three teenagers of our own.  None with government support. It affected the budget and the living arrangments but we managed. It makes for an interesting life with 6 teenagers with raging hormones. Two we managed to get back on the rails. Unfortunately we lost the third to a drug overdose despite our best efforts including court episodes to support him.

mike j says:

09:43pm | 29/06/11

@ Mark J

“I cringed when I realised our names are similar.” - No you didn’t. You copied my handle because you have a gay crush on me. Understandable, but still lame.

“Firstly, its nice to see that you and Hitler…” - Is that your new personal record for Godwin’s law?

“contributing negatively to societies “gene pool”” - Solid understand of genetics and natural selection you have there.

“Im sorry, but what credible research do you have to back that up?” - Twin studies, but also a more general understanding of the relative contributions of genetics and the developmental environment to human behaviour. You should look into it.

mike j says:

10:14pm | 29/06/11

@ bec

“Plenty of partnerships are anti-evolutionary.” - Save your case studies and personal anecdotes for your knitting circle. We need a simple, logical paradigm that can be successfully generalised for functional application to an entire population. Otherwise you’re proposing intrusive state oversight over who marries whom. What do you want now? A gene test on top of your Covenant to Breed and gynosprog exam?

Okay, ‘anti-evolutionary’ was possibly not a great term. Social welfare is anti-evolutionary. Homosexuals breeding just isn’t a part of evolution at all.

“I find it pretty incomprehensible that sexuality is prioritised as a qualifying criteria for parenthood” - Wrong. But thanks for encapsulating homosexual entitlement for me. Sexuality isn’t really the qualifying criteria for parenthood; gender is.

You’re arguing from the perspective that children are commodities over which adults exert ‘rights’ and ‘ownership’. What about the right of a child to the reasonable expectation of having a mother and father? I agree with you on adoption and guardianship, though: where that expectation critically fails, the priority should be parenting, not gender.

“How does that help the kid whose straight parents only had him for the baby bonus?” - Why don’t you ask him. I’m yet to meet someone who wasn’t pretty stoked with being born.

Shit… this just keeps going, doesn’t it. Okay, bec, you win. You obviously care far more about this than I do about trolling your hysterical tendency to fag hagacity. It’s demonstrable that, depending on your point of view, there are rational and logical arguments for a definition of marriage that excludes homosexuality. If the gay marriage lobby acknowledged this, they might come across as less boorishly self-interested, but I think there’s a lower probability that I could care less.

Go easy on those mineral waters.

mike j says:

10:17pm | 29/06/11

@ Fred Phillips

I’m the lazy one? Why didn’t you just post that in the first place?

Nice source. Dubya dubya australianmarriageequality. Who was that survey commissioned by? The Australian Institute for Friends and Uncles and Grandnieces of Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals and Transgenders Who Want to Learn to Marriage Good?

Your name: Fred Phillips says:

10:50pm | 29/06/11

Couldn’t care less who it’s commissioned by, actually mike j. Got any polls - commissioned by anyone, anytime - that suggest a majority of Australians don’t support gay marriage?

MHW says:

11:29pm | 29/06/11

Well bec et alia, if you only knew a little history you might know that in the past a woman’s (never the man’s) inability to procreate were grounds for divorce. Now in our “enlightened” times we don’t need a reason at all! It seems ironic to me that when heterosexual couples are divorcing at close to 50% of marriages that homosexual couples are racing to sign-up to the institution. May they have greater success. However my values believe that children deserve both a loving mother and father. Sorry if I’m old-fashioned, but I have biology on my side. Heterosexual couples, without IVF, surrogacy or genetic engineering are simply a dying breed.

Mark J says:

11:35pm | 29/06/11

@Mike J

You sound like a 12y.o. boy. I could sit here arguing with you forever, but I ask myself, “what would the point be”. At the end of the day, i’d never get through to someone like you. All anyone has to do is look at your previous responses to know that you have no valid argument. Thats why you reply to points with answers like “WRONG” and “you must have a gay crush on me”.

Have fun living your life in hate and intellectual darkness. If you would like to have a proper, informed and respectable debate i’d be more than willing to assist. I just feel you have a lot of growing up to do before you’re ready for that. I bid you adieu.

zem says:

11:56pm | 29/06/11

bec, the article made two points and you missed both of them.

BTW, Jersey Shore is on so it is time for more education for you. ;^)

Pete says:

12:13am | 30/06/11

It seems the only people supporting gay marriage are strident, unpleasant lesbians and gay men with a deluded, effeminate and over-romanticsed soppy wet view of having a life that would be complete by aping a repressive institution. Both groups can be pretty embarrassing to be around. These people watch too much (American) TV.

acotrel says:

05:21am | 30/06/11

It seems that lesbian couples are excluded from marriage because during IVF, the semen isn’t placed into the vagina by their partner’s penis?  There must be a way around this technicality!

Dude says:

10:23am | 30/06/11

If I can not create “swimmers”, I can not marry?
Is this official?

Kel says:

11:14am | 30/06/11

Marriage means: “A commitment between a sexually compatible couple that is consumated (and renewed) by the only natural act that produces new human life” (Harvard Law School definition). That act will not always produce new human life (because of infertility, the pill, the wrong time of the month or age) but that is the nature of the act. That means marriage is the framework and foundation for the birth and nurturing of babies. To deny that’s what marriage means is to tell a lie. To change marriage to mean merely “best friends” is to radically, surgically, remove the generation-to-generatiion glue that holds society together.

mike j says:

12:45pm | 30/06/11

“Couldn’t care less who it’s commissioned by, actually mike j.”

So you don’t understand how polls work, then. The only people who seem to be commissioning polls are the people who want gay marriage. If we could see all the other polls they buried before achieving the outlying sample they wanted, you’d get a more accurate representation of public sentiment.

This is their survey item: “A number of countries allow same-sex couples to marry. These include Argentina, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa and Spain, as well as parts of the United States and Mexico. Do you agree or disagree that same-sex couples in Australia should be able to marry?”

What purpose do the first two sentences serve except to prejudice the survey question? Bad survey, bad citation, bad site, bad science.

The simple truth is, if 60% of people wanted gay marriage, then we’d have gay marriage. Suck it up, princess.

mike j says:

12:53pm | 30/06/11

“You sound like a 12y.o. boy.”

Do you think about 12yo boys a lot, Mark?

“I could sit here arguing with you forever”

Probably. You do appear too stupid to learn anything.

“Have fun living your life in hate and intellectual darkness.”

Have fun not being married.

“If you would like to have a proper, informed and respectable debate i’d be more than willing to assist.”

Pass.

PDR says:

01:57pm | 30/06/11

Mike j, five questions re your argument that: “[m]aking a social distinction between heterosexuals couples, who can and do breed together 95% of the time, and homosexual couples, who cannot breed together under any circumstances, is simple, clean, logical, functional, and consistent not just with public opinion in this country, but across the world.”

1. Do you support preventing men and women who are medically incapable of having children (those who are infertile, for any reason) from marrying? That would be an equally clean, logical, functional and consistent approach to this issue, as they are incapable of breeding under any circumstances.

2. Gay and lesbian couples are able to have children together, albeit by utilising IVF technologies and, in the case of gay couples, a surrogate mother. Using modern technologies, these children are the genetic product of their two gay or lesbian parents (ie, a surrogate mother or sperm donor provides no DNA). How do you square this with a ban on gay marriage: it clearly cannot be on the *capacity* of gay couples to have children, as this capacity exists? Where do you draw the line in terms of the proportion of gay couples that have children before you would accept gay marriage: 5%; 10%, 25%; 50%? If the proportion of heterosexual couples that had children fell below this threshold, would you support the abolishment of the institution of marriage?

3. Is it less important for adopted children to be raised in a married family environment than biological children?

4. Following from the reasoning in point 2, above, do you, in general, support rules that discriminate against minority (5%) groups on the basis that the general rule suits the majority (95%)? (Please note, my question is not whether such rules may exist and be tolerated at present; my question is whether you support such rules in general.)

5. The article stresses the importance of and historical justification for the institution of marriage, but does not identify a clear harm of altering it. What harm(s) do you believe the following groups suffer(s) from allowing gay marriage:
a) presently married couples;
b) prospective married couples;
c) biological children;
d) adopted children;
e) society at large.

mike j says:

03:28pm | 30/06/11

Hi PDR,

Thanks for your questions.

1. No, I don’t support that, for various reasons, but mostly because it’s impossible to administer. Not clean or functional at all. Read my responses to bec, and ask yourself how we identify those individuals who are medically incapable.

2. Medical science could also clone and breed a race of super-aggressive chimp soldiers. Doesn’t make it desirable or ethical. I also don’t think that technology is legal in Australia, and I don’t think homosexuals wanting to genetically engineer their own children is the epic point you’re after.

3. I won’t say ‘less important’, but having already experienced a critical failure in the family unit, it is more important to find adoptees responsible parents than it is to find them a nuclear family.

4. Yes, I support such rules in general. But this isn’t a rule that discriminates at all. Homosexuals are allowed to get married to someone of the opposite sex, just like everyone else.

5. What harm would come from giving everyone a Victoria Cross? Think of marriage as being somewhere between a VC and a Happy Meal; understand that where you place marriage on that continuum is totally subjective, and that your opinion is no more valid than anyone else’s.

Were you going somewhere with this, or did you think these were the holes in my argument?

Fred Phillips says:

04:14pm | 30/06/11

“The simple truth is, if 60% of people wanted gay marriage, then we’d have gay marriage. Suck it up, princess.”

Thanks for your (once again abusive) reply, mike j.

It’s not as simple as you maintain, obviously. Something doesn’t become legal by reason of having public support. It requires legislation by our Federal parliament.

As you would probably be aware, there’s been a number of polls in recent years eviddencing popular support for gay marriage running at in excess of 50%, and none suggesting the contrary. I invited you to share with me any evidence you had that indicates a majority of Australians don’t want gay marriage. That you did not do so suggests to me that you can’t. Pick all the holes you want in the polls whose results don’t line up with your prejudices, but until you have anything empricial to contradict them perhaps you need to let the point go.

It’s overly simplistic to assume that if gay marriage had popular support it would be legalised. I suspect you know this. The Gillard government is on a knife-edge. They have made the calculation that they stand to lose more votes than they would gain by acting on this. They have little to gain by doing anything remotely controversial at this point in time. That is cowardly, of course, but probably politically sensible.

Michael says:

08:19am | 01/07/11

God knows there’s no point even commenting, everyone else has already said this, and you’re never going to change your opinions (testament to the sort of closed-mindedness that would explain the blaring oversights in your argument), but yeah.

If marriage is solely a vehicle for spitting out babies, we should also remove the right to marry from all those infertile couples doing it out of lust. Those heathens!

Same with those who choose to adopt instead of tearing A-to-V. And same with those who simply choose to marry out of love, with no intention of starting a family. I mean, how selfish! They’re obviously not using their marriage the way God intended. Abraham must be so disappointed.

PS: The part of gay marriage that improves the social status and the visibility of the queer community isn’t the actual act of getting married - you monumental tool - it’s simply THE RIGHT to make that decision, just like every other person.

PPS: Is everyone in the AFA plagued by the constant, debilitating fear that they were actually adopted, or is it just you Tim?

mike j says:

06:18pm | 01/07/11

Sorry, Fred Phillips. I did reply, but The Punch mods are having one of their arbitrary moments.

I like it when they do that. It justifies the behaviour of everyone who just comes on here to troll.

Carmel says:

03:41pm | 04/07/11

Mr Cannon, I applaud your efforts to show why keeping marriage between a man and woman is so important to maintain balanced society and culture. Marriage is a covenant open to life, same-sex ‘marriage’ cannot be open to life because they can simply can not procreate!!! Thank-you Mr Cannon for presenting the views of generation Y and for your clear insights into this controversial issue.

Kevin says:

07:31am | 29/06/11

Erick, that essay is rubbish.  Observations on the behaviour within a tribe of baboons (apparently gleaned from watching some doco on the discovery channel) hardly constitutes a sound basis for an essay on the history and purpose of marriage.
If this is the sort of tripe you read then it’s no wonder you have some strange views on things.

The righteous one says:

07:31am | 29/06/11

I’m really getting concerned about all that bottled up hatred and anger you have for women Erick,especially the one that you faced in your divorce. Perhaps you need to discuss it with someone. Either that or you are really one sad and sick pussy.  Maybe you are gay, then you can move to New York, get married on equal terms get divorced on equal terms, get a bad divorce settlement on equal terms and then you could hate everybody regardless of gender on equal terms.

Matt says:

08:16am | 29/06/11

Ah, Erick the racist is now Erick the misogynist.

Good to see that hatred and intolerance knows no boundaries.

bec says:

08:16am | 29/06/11

Shrill, unbridled cray-cray of the variety that would make even Germaine Greer’s monocle drop into her earl grey.

Classic.

Tedd says:

08:33am | 29/06/11

That’s just the ‘cum hoc ergo propter hoc’ fallacy.

Correlation doesn’t mean causation.

Tim just engages in special pleading to please his employers.

Tubesteak says:

09:09am | 29/06/11

If people are truly concerned about the institution of marriage then they should review no-fault divorce laws and the damage done to marriage by feminists.

Marriages can be dissolved almost as easily as employment contracts. They are easier to get into and out of than mortgages and have less commitments than mortgages when in them.

Maybe Tim should be looking at that rather than what two blokes down the road mean to the family next door.

Bobster says:

10:00am | 29/06/11

What a surprise. Racist, sexist AND homophobic.

You’re as predictable as you are repulsive, Erick.

Coby says:

10:12am | 29/06/11

Allowing same-sex marriage might actually help things, Erick.

Just because they can, gay people won’t rush out for hasty marriages. Many happy gay couples will still probably choose not to marry.  But given the struggle it will have been to obtain, marriage won’t be something that’s taken for granted.

Even if 60% of gay married couples remain married for life, they’ll still be helping lift the average, and thus helping combat the degeneration you’re talking about.

Benrama says:

10:43am | 29/06/11

Wait, I don’t get it. Are gay people the moon or is JIm Carrey the gay people? Or is it the moon marriage and gay people are Neil Armstrong out to conquer the moon using tidal shifting? I thought I understood the moon metaphor then clicked on Erick’s link and got Al Bundy so now am very confused.
  Regardless, as an unmarried, agnostic heterosexual male with no interest in getting married or having children shall chip in my rather worthless two cents. I clicked on this article due the the title, citing that the author shall be giving reasons for their argument. In all this debate, I’ve never heard any good reason against the marriage of the gays other than “God reckons, so there!” , “I reckon, so there!” or “It’s tradition, so there!” all of which I must add are perfectly valid viewpoints to have, particularly if you happen to be God. You don’t have to like gay people. However none to me, nor this article, offer a valid reason as to why the LEGAL definition of a married couple can’t include a same sex couple.
  Clearly, whilst in the past fifty years there has been a shift in attitude (for the better i might add) towards acceptance of gays and lesbians, we have also seen the worlds population expand to now over 6.7 billion people. I think the human race can handle a few people getting married have having sex not purely for procreation but perhaps even for (ghast!) fun.

Steve says:

12:47pm | 29/06/11

I have not (yet) read the essay however you do allude to a good point: the definition of “marriage” has a long historical and well established meaning.  It is generally accepted that over time, “marriage” is a unique term reserved to a sacred and special union between a man and woman.  If parliament can so easily tinker and change the fundamental definition of such a well entrenched historical term, then what’s next?  Lets create an orwellian world where through a system of “new speak” and “double speak” we alter the definition of other words such as “murder”, “privacy” and “freedom” too.  C’mon same sex couples, even you can see the dangers here!  Why not be original and come up with a different term to the word “marriage” to describe the relationship you want to be in?  Why do you want to (ahem) murder history?

Kika says:

01:10pm | 29/06/11

For once, I agree with you Erick.

Erick says:

01:47pm | 29/06/11

@Tedd - No, it isn’t just about correlation. If you read the links you will see that there is also a theory that interprets the evidence (first link), and an observational confirmation of the theory (third link).

@Tubesteak - Yes. The gay “marriage” issue is just a trivial argument over the definition of a single word. The real problems are with the ways in which governments have seriously messed up marriage itself, and the long-term consequences.

@Coby - Maybe. But the “gay marriage” argument is ultimately about the definition of a single word. The structure and function of marriage within a society is far more important than what it’s called.

@Steve - The second link in my comment is relevant to your point. It’s to the Code of Hammurabi, the oldest existing written set of laws. It distinctly and specifically refers to heterosexual marriage, which was clearly an accepted institution at the time.

@Kika - There’s a first time for everything!

@All - As usual, the feminists can’t answer any of my points, and so they resort to mindless insults and personal attacks.

bec says:

03:40pm | 29/06/11

Erick, perhaps you could elaborate on how you see marriage ideally functioning then. Perhaps you could use 100-200 words to outline how you would ideally see the world function.

Bev says:

04:17pm | 29/06/11

Tubesteak says:09:09am | 29/06/11

Maybe Tim should be looking at that rather than what two blokes down the road mean to the family next door.
You know as well as I that any ideas or conclusions drawn would be drown in a sea or shrill indignation from the sisterhood.  They couldn’t wait to unwind the changes introduced in 2006 and have made it worse.

Erick says:

05:28pm | 29/06/11

@bec - That’s an interesting, non-trivial question. To be honest, I’ve spent a lot more time thinking about what’s wrong with the current version of marriage, than what I think ought to replace it. I’ll have to ponder that for some time.

Unbelievable says:

06:36pm | 29/06/11

And yet civilisation, past, present and undoubtedly into the future has been governed by laws set by the majority - not the minority. Yet war, famine, lack of access to education, oppression, fear, genocide…All have happened and are still happening…. So allowing gay couples to marry is going to do what exactly? Undermine the perfect utopia that is teetering on the edge of destruction by gay marriage?

bec says:

07:12pm | 29/06/11

FWIW, it was asked in good faith.

I did read the articles you linked. I did find what they imagined marriage to be like skeevy and removed from the complexity of actual human relationships. I don’t like the transaction model of human relationships that many people claim is the ideal (and the idea of a man as a mealticket is something I’m distinctly uncomfortable with, watching how my own dad suffered under the strain of being expected to be a breadwinner).

I don’t necessarily have a lot of problems with the nature of marriage per se. I don’t like how it’s expressed or conceived by some people, but they’re not necessarily stopping me from forming one that will be loving and productive.

mattkas says:

08:33pm | 29/06/11

Why do so many correspondents defer to Erick, as if he were the quintessential star of The Punch forum? Please stop doing this Punch community!

Erick says:

11:42pm | 29/06/11

@bec - Likewise, my answer was also in good faith. I don’t like the current system, but the previous one was also far from perfect. Coming up with something better then both is not something I could do off the top of my head.

While the transactional model of relationships is an oversimplification - and only one way of looking at a complex phenomenon - it does have insights to offer. It’s certainly not the whole picture.

However, it’s useful when trying to explain why marriage has been such a persistent feature of pretty much every human society more complex than a small tribe, that we know of. I think the answer lies in that union performing a specific social function, in addition to its personal significance for individuals.

Richard says:

11:43pm | 29/06/11

Excellent links Erick~ I especially like the Prof. Thomas Sowell clip in the 3rd one. There has been a great injustice perpetrated against the men of the western world in the last 50 years, and only now are the full consequences of that becoming apparent.

lex says:

10:59am | 30/06/11

@benrama my favourite response on this page.  (well, i reckon - so there!)

Lisa H. says:

11:53pm | 30/06/11

OMG I feel sick from reading that essay…although the idea of children for labour is an idea I could go along with…but if that is the case…why don’t women get 70-80 per cent of the man’s money ongoing (if they leave the kids behind)?
Sounds like a fair deal to me!

L. says:

08:16am | 29/06/11

“Where will it all end…..most likely in tears!”

Like what? 35% of all marriages..??

Not much change then, is there..?

Tom says:

08:52am | 29/06/11

@sandfly, A great call. You have picked up on a very alarming trend in our dumbed down society ... “This debate has largely been closed down through the actions of blinkered activists on a roll.” The author describes “momentum rhetoric”. The first time I have heard that phrase.

It is definitely the latest dishonest manouvre to stampede the punters to a position where they would not otherwise go.

Some other recent mutations of this include the “settled science” rhetoric driven by taxation spivs or even the “Pippa’s arse dialogs” which have been driven by “enraged” feminists.

To what end? Agree, like all mob rule devices, “…..most likely in tears!”

Tom says:

09:00am | 29/06/11

L ... dead right, blinkered activists on a roll delivered 35% although I suspect our modern overblown sense of entitlement and spiv lawyers didn’t help.

A lovely quote in another blog today by Peter “Once the tail starts wagging the dog, you have a serious problem.”

Clancy of Sydney says:

03:47pm | 29/06/11

Blinkered activists… agree! On the one hand, i can fully understand that homosexuals want to try to make the most of life despite the biological disability of being gay. But my vexation is that gay pride and gay marriage goes well beyond the desire for equality, it is designed to bully the world on it’s knees, bow down and proclaim homosexuality is just as ‘good’ as heterosexuality. If you take a look at any other biological malfunction… do we have any other disability pride parades? What about eye glasses pride parades? No? or walking stick pride parades? No?  or wheelchair pride parades? No? NO! because they are what is known as disabilities, and disabilities are to be overcome, not made into objects of pride and celebration!!

Bev says:

04:24pm | 29/06/11

Clancy of Sydney says:03:47pm | 29/06/11
Not as good as, better. They are continually attempting to claim the moral high ground.

mel says:

07:32pm | 29/06/11

Clancy says “the biological disability of being gay”. Sorry, but I don’t understand: what ‘s the biological disability you are talking about? To me, gay people seem much the same as straight people, and indeed, much the same as disabled people too. Certainly both gay and disabled have lots to overcome: the hatred, the fear, the awkardness that people have when confronted with ‘the other’. And maybe we should celebrate the way gays, the disabled, the different, have overcome these issues. Surely we should be doing everything we can to make lives easier, not harder?

And Bec, I raise a glass to anyone who can be drinking in the middle of the day in the middle of the week. I had to wait until I got home from work. Love your attitude!

Rach says:

10:32pm | 29/06/11

Mel, you have nailed it right there - why should life and the basics of life be made more difficult?!!!  As for calling being gay a ‘disability’, that is just offensive.

Ben says:

09:30am | 29/06/11

Joe, I think you’ve just made Tim’s point. A homosexual couple together cannot naturally create offspring with shared DNA. If we as a society believe that it is good for children to be raised by their biological mother AND father, then same-sex marriage is incompatible with this aim.

Blazes says:

09:45am | 29/06/11

@joe, that is ridiculous. Single people can do everything you mentioned. Does that mean that single people can get married to themselves?

You have missed the point of the article. It is that the physical nature of heterosexual relationships, i.e. organic bodily union through coitus, is linked to procreation, as part of the natural cycle of life. This has a communal significance of which marriage is a recognition.

Blazes says:

09:53am | 29/06/11

@joe, that is ridiculous. Singles can do all the things you mentioned. Does that mean that singles can get married to themselves?

The point is that the physical nature of heterosexual relationships, i.e. organic bodily union through coitus, is inherently linked to procreation and part of the natural cycle of life. Marriage is a recognition of this communal significance.

Bev says:

10:43am | 29/06/11

Which why I believe the push for homosexual marriage may well be a stalking horse for exactly that.  At present homosexual couples have limited rights for assisted reproduction and adoption just them same as de-facto couples.  If it is declared they can marry those limitations are swept away without any other laws being changed. The limitations are there because society believes the best chance for children growing in to well adjusted adults is if they are brought up by their biological parents.  If they do achieve their aim we then create the situation that a homosexual couple have more rights than a de-facto hetrosexual couple.

Kris says:

11:30am | 29/06/11

You are right Joe, but do these forms child rearing produce positive outcomes in children? Many studies have showed, a stable traditional family unit results in children better educated, less prone to drug and alchohol abuse and less prone to criminal convictions.

Fred Phillips says:

11:46am | 29/06/11

“The point is that the physical nature of heterosexual relationships, i.e. organic bodily union through coitus, is inherently linked to procreation and part of the natural cycle of life. Marriage is a recognition of this communal significance.”

Right. Except for heterosexual couples who are too old to procreate, who still have every right to marry.

remlap says:

12:14pm | 29/06/11

Many studies also show that a stable non-traditional family unit also results in children better educated, less prone to drug and alchohol abuse and less prone to criminal convictions, than those children in an unstable traditional family unit.

And Bev, it may create a situation where a homosexual couple has more rights (albeit considerably limited in nature) than a de facto couple, but only so long as they are married.

Marriage didn’t always exist in humanity. Like society, it evolved and continues to do so. To attempt to lock a concept like marriage in stone is to deny its past.

Benevolent Rapscallion says:

12:52pm | 29/06/11

@ Kris “Many studies have showed, a stable traditional family unit results in children better educated, less prone to drug and alchohol abuse and less prone to criminal convictions.”

Problem is, all the unstable family units are allowed to be married too. Marriage requires no prerequisite IQ, education standard or specific moral/ethical viewpoints. There’s no shortage of screwed up kids being raised by both biological parents.

Bev says:

01:35pm | 29/06/11

remlap says:12:14pm | 29/06/11

Many studies also show that a stable non-traditional family unit also results in children better educated, less prone to drug and alchohol abuse and less prone to criminal convictions, than those children in an unstable traditional family unit.

Thats a given.  However when you compare stable non-traditional family unit to intact hetrosexual families they come out on top.
Just as comparing stable/unstable hetrosexual families shows ...
Bingo. These are valid studies if done correctly but comparing apples to oranges is not valid. A study between stable/unstable non traditional family/traditional families always show stable mum and dad are best.

remlap says:

02:22pm | 29/06/11

“Comparing apples to oranges is not valid”. Yet you choose to do so.

I originally could have contradicted the claims of Kris, but I didn’t feel the need.

However, I’d like some links to these many studies, for as far as I am aware, there is consistent scientific research showing that gay and lesbian parents raise children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents. Please produce links to credible empirical research that refutes the findings of major mental health associations in Australia, USA and Canada. Emphasis on the word “credible”.

Bev says:

05:09pm | 29/06/11

remlap says:02:22pm | 29/06/11

“credible”.
If I study stable (best) versus unstable(worst) of anything the any average Joe/Jane will tell you the result without researching it.

Yep there are many studies out there some have been cited here. Generally produced by people who rather than gather empirical evidence have depended on small loaded surveys with often dodgy conclusions which are sometimes peer reviewed (often not) and anybody who disagrees is run out of town on a rail. There are studies now emerging most times based on large survey bases or empirical evidence which are throwing up results quite often totally different to what the researcher anticipated. “fathers rough house play with children” being a recent one. In the past (thankfuly not so much now) it was difficult/impossible to get funding for research if didn’t fall within the accepted “truths”. Many researchers who did had their careers and reputations trashed. Example Larry Summers showed with empirical data from brain scans that men and womens brains were wired differently and did react differently to stimulii.  He lost his job and professorship at Harvard as it partialy debunked the feminist line that it was nuture not nature.  Feminists conducted a very loud, shrill and nasty campaign to get him sacked though there was no fault with his research. Similarly the institutions you mention are going through some turmoil as old beliefs are questioned.  Feminist generated fear has a lot to answer for just like the Vaticans suppression of truth via the inquisition.

hugyourkids says:

04:38am | 30/06/11

C’mon…it matters how a child is raised not who raises them.  If a child is given love, the freedom to imagine and dream and to be a child, to play, to be silly, to get dirty, to laugh and create joy and is given understanding, health care and education they will be on the right track.  I doubt if any of us really thought about it that we would really believe that only a straight couple can provide this to a child.  Yes, they may face adversity from the prejudices of other kids or should I say their parents but kids in todays society are facing that just for being a little chubby or having red hair, a straight couple would deal with that and so would a gay couple.  I am concerned with kids nowadays as so many are being denied their right to a childhood, I would say it is mostly straight couples that are denying their kids this right.  We should focus on letting kids be kids and their parents getting the support and tools to do that…whether they are straight or gay is neither here nor there in my opinion.

remlap says:

08:48am | 30/06/11

@Bev “Yep there are many studies out there some have been cited here.”
I didn’t find a single study cited here. How can you even use that as proof?

I asked for links to studies with credible empirical research and you provided me with long winded conspiracy theories as to why such researchers have been shunned. You managed to type a lot and still contributed nothing to the argument.

Phil says:

08:25am | 29/06/11

There are many gay couples that see this as a real option and due to their own bitterness would love to make it so that couples who chose not to have kids or who cant due to infertility shouldnt be allowed to be married.

Its all just anger, bitterness and envy.
Im surprised its not followed by more stomping of feet and tantrums to be honest as thats how they are acting about it all.

L. says:

08:34am | 29/06/11

“There are many gay couples that see this as a real option and due to their own bitterness would love to make it so that couples who chose not to have kids or who cant due to infertility shouldnt be allowed to be married.”

Excuse me..??

Could you point out some of these homosexual people or groups who feel this way..??

Redeker Plan says:

08:41am | 29/06/11

@Phil “There are many gay couples that see this as a real option and due to their own bitterness… blah blah blah”

This is brand new furphy for this debate as far as I know, so please - evidence and/or sources or STFU.

Davo says:

08:46am | 29/06/11

@Phil
How is it bitter from gay couples? Are gay couples the ones saying that marriage is primarily for procreation? No, it’s hetereosexuals against gay marriage who is saying that - hence it is THEM arguing that heterosexuals who are unable to procreate should not be allowed to marry, not gay couples.

Phil says:

09:08am | 29/06/11

Its bitter as gay couples are saying in some cases (not all) that if an infertile couple cant have kids (like us in our gay union) then they should be excluded from being allowed to marry.
Well currently it is legal for a male and female (key words) couple to marry even if they cant have kids or don’t want them.

As for source, just check “The punch” comments to find homosexuals who have this view. Some are serious, some aren’t.

Im against the use of the term Marriage or the definition of Marriage being changed to suit their needs.
Civil union or some other term not currently being used with the definition that they are both of the same sex etc is fine.

monkeytypist says:

10:46am | 29/06/11

@Phil gosh.  Talk about missing the point.  Many people on this thread, including me, have pointed out that Tim’s “the purpose of marriage is to generate children” point is purely and simply untrue, presented as it was without any real justification (historical or otherwise).  We are pointing out Tim’s hypocrisy because if he was consistent, he would say that childless couples had no right to be married, or that couples with children have no right to a divorce.  Since Tim is not arguing either of these things, he is being a hypocrite, and appears to be arguing from an unstated presumption (whatever his words to the contrary) that gay people don’t deserve to have the same social rights as straight people.

As for “definitions” - the definition of marriage has included any or all of the following - child brides, “proxy” marriage, monorgantic marriage, arranged marriages, marriages of convenience, multiple wives, concubines and other things that don’t accord with the modern definition - all within the “Judeo-Christian” or “Christian” historical understanding of marriage.  Quite simply, it has changed in the past, and it will continue to change.  If you don’t want anyone whatsoever to be married, gay or straight, fine then, just say that.  But at least be consistent.

Steve says:

10:59am | 29/06/11

Phil, how stupid are you? People are taking a polemic stand to point out that Cannon’s defence of marriage as solely a vehicle for procreation is ridiculous.

Bev says:

08:43am | 29/06/11

The legal aspects are all ready in law.  Homesexual couples are treated the same as de-facto couples by government agencies.

LeonT says:

09:49am | 29/06/11

Bev, they aren’t treated the same as *married* couples by government agencies. And that’s kinda the point.

Bev says:

11:11am | 29/06/11

@LeonT Do read replies before jumping in.  De-facto not married.

LeonT says:

11:40am | 29/06/11

@Bev I do read, it is just you aren’t grasping the implications.

De facto straight couples have the option to marry and get the different treatment. Gay couples do not. This is institutionalised discrimination, and wrong.

Bev says:

12:21pm | 29/06/11

LeonT says:11:40am | 29/06/11

De facto straight couples have the option to marry and get the different treatment. Gay couples do not. This is institutionalised discrimination, and wrong.
The only difference I can see is limitation on assisted reproduction. Society believes (for good reasons) that children as far as possible should be brought up by their biological parents. De-facto couples by default can do that either under their own steam or by assisted reproduction.  Homosexual couples never can.

Nafe says:

12:58pm | 29/06/11

LeonT, What are the extra benefits of a Marrage over a Defacto relationship?

LeonT says:

01:30pm | 29/06/11

@Nafe

Immigration and power of attorney are fairly important things where marriage confers rights above a de facto relationship. There’s undoubtably other areas too.

I don’t expect this to make an impresssion on you as you “educate me” trolls never actually take this material in before again demanding that someone explain things half a minute of clever googling could have revealed.

Nafe says:

02:20pm | 29/06/11

LeonT, The holier than thou types like youselves can’t even stick to the issues. You can’t answer a question so you start attacks, And you wonder why people don’t listen to you.

You do your own cause a dis service.

I simply asked the question due to thinking there was bugger all difference, now you have just proved you have no idea what your argument is.

LeonT says:

02:45pm | 29/06/11

@Nafe

I did answer your question. It is a question I have answered many times before and I’m sick of answering it.

This wouldn’t bother me so much save that the information is available to anyone with half a brain,  30 seconds of free time and an internet connection.

So I can not answer, whereby you can claim that I don’t have an answer. I can answer meekly, reinforcing your entitlement mentality. Instead I choose to tell you to use google and you get offended. You win no matter what!

Congratulations, you have privilege!

Cookie says:

03:35pm | 29/06/11

@ Nafe

The extra benefits of married couple over a de facto couple include automatic power of attorney and the associated next of kin rights surrounding medical issues. there are also automatic rights about the division of property and immigration (in terms of visas etc).
These rights, or lack of, are the same between a heterosexual and homosexual de facto couple.
However should a heterosexual couple decide they want those rights, then they have the choice to get married, homosexual couples however are denied that option.

Brett says:

03:51pm | 29/06/11

Hmm I thought de facto and married were much the same under law but LeonT does make a good point about immigration.

For instance I can get a spousal visa for Europe through my wife, but couldn’t if it was my same sex partner. Good point.

As for power of attorney, that can be signed over to anyone so the point is kind of invalid there. I almost had the triple threat on my Dad, executor of his will, enduring guardian and power of attorney, whilst mum was still alive.

Power of attorney is not automatically confered onto a married partner, as a lawyer advised me, if the house is in both their names and one become vegetative or seriously ill and needs care in another country or state, unless they can pyhsically sign the deed they are unable to sell the property until a death certificate is written. The spouse cannot say “he/she is incapacitated and I will sign for them”.

Its much the same with medical care unless you appoint an enduring guardian (NSW) or similar legal provision. Then they can argue with doctors.

Nafe says:

04:10pm | 29/06/11

Thank you Cookie for elaborating.

To be totally honest, I really couldn’t care either way if its approved or not. It doesn’t effect me in any way what so ever.

Previously i was totally opposed to it, but as i put more thought into the issue there will be zero effect on me and if it makes someone feel good and doesn’t cost me or the country money (which i don’t see how it does) then why not do it.

Pass the legislation and then lets get back to topics that actually affect me in some way.

James1 says:

04:28pm | 29/06/11

Nafe’s last post sums up my views on this perfectly.  I will not be leaving my wife for a man or a chair should this come about - it has no effect on me whatsoever, and thus I have no conceivable reason to oppose it.

Bev says:

05:30pm | 29/06/11

Nafe says:04:10pm | 29/06/11

Previously i was totally opposed to it, but as i put more thought into the issue there will be zero effect on me and if it makes someone feel good and doesn’t cost me or the country money (which i don’t see how it does) then why not do it.

Are you married? If so a few little changes to family law in 1975 may have a profound effect on you. The argument then was “hey its just a few words whats your beef”.

Remember the words that go
First they came for the ...........
It was not my problem
Then they came for…................

TimCannonIsATosser says:

10:47pm | 30/06/11

@ KH

“You sir, are a tosser.”

Love your work.

L. says:

08:20am | 29/06/11

“I would have thought that gay activists attention would be better focused on achieving tolerance around the world than some twisted notion of equality in insignificantly small localities”

Did you stop to consider that has there is more than one homosexual on the planet, they can focus on more than one thing at a time? ANd that the gay marriage is just one example of the tolerance they seek to achieve..?

Markus says:

12:29pm | 29/06/11

“Did you stop to consider that has there is more than one homosexual on the planet, they can focus on more than one thing at a time?”
Given that the Punch has had a new article on this same issue at least 3 times a week for the last couple of months (we even got 2 in one day earlier this week!), clearly they can’t.

L. says:

08:32am | 29/06/11

“Homosexual couples keep claiming they want equal rights, but they already have exactly the same rights as hetrosexuals.  They want extra rights, such as the right to marry as a homosexual couple.  I don’t have this right, so claiming it is unfair is nonsense.”

Umm, no…. At the moment neither you or homosexuals have that right. But if the law was changed, you would both have that right. You could marry which ever gender you want.

Pretty simple really.

Jason Todd says:

08:34am | 29/06/11

Chris, you are absolutely correct. So I put it to you that we redefine all the equalising choices in history.

After all, women didn’t used to have the vote. Instead of giving them the vote, let’s grant them a right that carries with it all the fundamental benefits of the vote, we will just give it a different “woman-vote friendly” name. When women use the new term for ‘voting’ people will instantly know that they have had their opinion heard, but the different term will allow us to still be prejudiced against that opinion. It’s win win!

Saying ‘give it to them, but give it a different name’ only serves to reinforce a separation. To reinforce these kinds of separation is an open door to prejudice. What I don’t understand is if people are okay with gay people forming a union that has all the same rights, benefits and responsibilities as a marriage, why do they have such a problem with calling it a marriage?

AliceC says:

08:37am | 29/06/11

No more difficult than just extending the intitution of marriage to gay couples. Seriously, what do we heteros have to lose?

A rose by any other says:

08:56am | 29/06/11

They could get ‘Merried’  They could ‘Merry’ their partner. 
Goes with the ‘Gay’ theme I guess

Chris_D says:

09:05am | 29/06/11

@L. Thank you for proving my point, that we all have exactly the same rights.

@Jason Todd, call the women’s vote whatever you want, it would still count as 1 vote, which carries exactly the same weight as the men’s vote.  So doesn’t this support my argument that same-sex marriage under any other name is still seen as marriage?

This seems to be the sticking point in the same-sex marriage debate.  It’s not whether or not they can be “married”, it’s whether or not it is called “marriage”.  What difference does it make to homosexuals?  Obviously it makes a lot of difference to hetrosexuals.

John Della Bonker says:

10:56am | 29/06/11

@ Chris_D - re finding another name for same sex marriage - that’s got me thinking . . . Maybe sodomage for the boys, and strapadicktomeage for the girls? You’ve got to admit, sodomage has quite a ‘ring’ to it!

L. says:

11:09am | 29/06/11

“@L. Thank you for proving my point, that we all have exactly the same rights.”

No.. read it again..

Jason Todd says:

11:11am | 29/06/11

The point being that if you are labelling the same thing as something different for different social groups, you are reinforcing the ability of people to descriminate against those groups. By labelling it differently, you are by definition making it different, which will have flow on effects as to how people perceive and react to such unions.

Fred Phillips says:

11:50am | 29/06/11

Chris_D: “Homosexual couples keep claiming they want equal rights, but they already have exactly the same rights as hetrosexuals.”

Except the right to marry, obviously.

Chris_D says:

12:18pm | 29/06/11

@L. and Fred Phillips; you both miss the point, and L, maybe you need to re-read it.

Homos/hetero’s have the same rights.  I thought I made it easy for all to understand.  What you are saying is that homosexuals don’t have the same right because they can’t marry another of the same sex.  Hetrosexual people can’t marry someone of the same sex either.  It is EXACTLY the same for everyone.

I hope I have educated at least 2 people today, so it won’t have been a total waste of time repeating myself.

Chips Ahoy says:

12:33pm | 29/06/11

Chris, you have the right to marry whom you love. They do not.

Chris_D says:

01:28pm | 29/06/11

@Chips Ahoy, you are just making a general assumption, which is fair enough, but it doesn’t support or refute the fact that we all have the same rights.  Firstly, both parties have to be consenting, so immediately I don’t necessarily have the right o marry someone just because i love them,  but this is semantics, and this is where the argument seems to usually end up.

I take your point, and I do understand both sides, but while same-sex advocates keep telling me they are being discriminated against and denied “their” rights, I will continue to advise them that we all have the same rights.

Chris_D says:

01:36pm | 29/06/11

@Jason Todd; so are you suggesting that we should not be using the term “gay” or “lesbian” as it is separatist?  You really should let the organisers of the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras know ASAP, so people don’t get the wrong impression as they take to the streets of Sydney on their floats.

Also, should we get rid of the term “Male” and “Female” and the associated separatism that is accompanied with these stereotypes?  At what point do we accept our differences and embrace them?

Fred Phillips says:

01:44pm | 29/06/11

Thanks, Chris_D.
But the point is that gay people don’t have the right to marry their life partners, like heterosexual people can. Would’ve thought that was pretty obvious. Your lame “gotcha” doesn’t educate anyone or constitute a sensible discussion to the debate.

Fred Phillips says:

01:45pm | 29/06/11

Sensible contribution, I meant to say.

Chris_D says:

02:28pm | 29/06/11

@Fred Phillips,

Is it really just a case of “they can, why can;t we”?  Why don’t the same-sex marriage advocates just say marriage should be abolished altogether?  Then no one is being discriminated against.  This would be equally as fair, and if it’s all about equality, why not take this argument?  I’ve said it before, if same-sex couples created their own terms of/for “merriage” I can’t see much resistance.  As it is, more and more people are opting for civil unions over traditional marriage anyway.  Why not take the path of least resistance?

Jason Todd says:

03:14pm | 29/06/11

Chris, in a roundabout way, you are addressing my point. Assigning a different name to something enforces its status as different.
If you are calling something what it is; use a different name for it.  I doubt anyone who is gay objects to being called gay because that is what they are.

If you are striving for equal rights and the integration of an outgroup, why would you reinforce the difference? If gay people are getting married, then their marriage is the equivalent of a heterosexual marriage and should be labelled as such. Enforcing segregation is a very different thing from celebrating difference.

Chips Ahoy says:

08:02pm | 29/06/11

@ Chris_D 1.28pm of course you don’t have the right to marry someone if they do not consent, and that would not change if same sex marriage was legalised. Perhaps let me re-phrase myself. You have the right to marry who you love, who loves you in return and wishes to marry you. They do not.

joshwhite says:

09:11am | 29/06/11

That’s the way, insults and talking over the top of people - welcome to the gay rights lobby.

Lloyd says:

09:27am | 29/06/11

Well said. I really struggled to finished reading it, because he seemed so intent on keeping us hooked with his smarmy nonsense, and what was the Jim Carrey movie analogy? I’ll second you with the mud slinging.He’s wasting his time anyway.Homosexual marriage will be here within two years max.

Blazes says:

09:58am | 29/06/11

Null and Void: you reaffirm my view that the case for gay marriage is based on emotion rather than reason.

Stephy says:

10:58am | 29/06/11

Emotive! What a good word! You’re doing it because of “Love”, right? Well then! If it’s for LUUURV then marry away! Nothing stronger than love, right?
But you have to admit, if love is SOOO STRONG, then maybe other people who are in love should marry?
There are brothers and sisters out there, cousins and uncles, etc that are all in love and want to commit to a meaningful relationship with each other. It’s LOVE! They are pining for the marriage denied to them. Perhaps we should give them equal *cough* rights and let them marry too!
What about under 18’s and adults? I mean, I’m sure a 12 or 13 year old can feel love too! Maybe they could marry classmates? Or their teacher! Why not, right? If they’re in love, it’s all GOOD!
I personally have had an inking my cat harbours affectionate feelings for me for some time. It came as a shock that I would be saddened to tears if he left me, died of natural causes or was run over. I love him! Perhaps not in the same way as I love my husband, but it’s all love. A consentual, till-death-do-us-part relationship, and who knows, after my kitty has passed on I might find another cat who loves me for who I am and not my thumbs that can open cat cans.
On the topic of dual marriages, how about holding mroe than one marriage at the same time? Or polygamous marriages? Love knows no bounds, you know, and if marriage aint such a big deal then maybe options can open up to those who feel their love has horrible boundaries placed on it.

I’m sure you’ll understand. You’re in love, right?

LeonT says:

01:52pm | 29/06/11

@ Blazes “you reaffirm my view that the case for gay marriage is based on emotion rather than reason.”

Of course it is. Any movement that claims something is unfair is necessarily appealing to emotion. That is no cause to dismiss it.

Janey says:

08:59am | 30/06/11

Your contribution is most certainly null and void.

ladybuglauren says:

02:10pm | 29/06/11

I actually think the most flawed part of this logic is that it runs along the lines of “people get married to have children, gays cannot have children, if we allow gays to marry, marriages won’t result in children anymore”.

Like somehow if gay people are allowed to married I’ll say ‘to hell with it all!” shack up with another hot lady, and never have children. 

You do know, Tim, that gay people will continue not to have children, and straight people will continue to have children, with or without a marriage in place.  Do you think the fact I can’t legally marry another lady is the only thing holding me back?  That if gay marriage becomes legal, then we will all jack the whole hetero thing in and never have children?

People have children for a variety of reasons, and people marry for a variety of reasons.  I am yet to meet one person who has claimed that they got married just so they could have children.  People who I know got married because they love each other and wanted to demonstrate that commitment in front of their friends and families, and (certainly less romantically) gain spousal rights in emergency situations, along with other practical considerations.  People had kids because they wanted kids.  In many cases, people aren’t getting married before they have kids because they just plain aren’t concerned about getting married.

Stop confusing the two issues.

Bev says:

11:16am | 29/06/11

And your argument to support homosexual marriage is….................

mel says:

08:30pm | 29/06/11

I think Slothy has hit the nail on the head (and various other cliches)!

Marriage is not about children: it is not mentioned in any of the documents, it is not mentioned in the vows. The reason people get married is that they love each other and want to commit to each other for life. Gay or straight, as long as they love each other, surely that is the only thing anyone of us should worry about. If they have children, cool; if they don’t have children, cool.

How does the marriage of gay people affect the marriage of straight people? Can anyone tell me what has happened in those countries where gay marriage is legal? Have straight breeding couples stopped getting married? Has the sky fallen? Has western civilization collapsed? Or has there been absolutely no change?

Slothy says:

08:47am | 29/06/11

Homosexual marriage causes tsunamis and flooding. What’s not to get? How is your pure heterosexual marriage supposed to survive when the gays wash away your house with the power of their tidal wave of love?

Bobster says:

10:26am | 29/06/11

You’d think people would be embaressed to parrot Westboro Baptist Church arguments.

Apparently not though.

Stephy says:

11:06am | 29/06/11

Slothy, my cats would reproduce on the doorstep. I could feel the love, but I didn’t like walking out the door and being greeted with it. They could move their rutting away from my house, it was already awash with too many other things.

Slothy says:

12:25pm | 29/06/11

Stephy, homosexual marriage = tsunamis = cats rutting on your doorstep? Call me dumb, but it looks to me like your analogy is even more incoherent than Tim’s, so congratulations on that at least.

And if your cats are reproducing on your doorstep, you should probably be a responsible pet owner and neuter them. Because they’re animals with animal insticts. As opposed gay people, who are humans. And so unlikely to breed on doorstep just because they’re allowed to get married.

Stephy says:

06:56pm | 29/06/11

Oh but Slothy, my kitties were male. Both of them.
As for the analogy, I was following on from your comment. Reread yours, then reread mine, and maybe join the dots.

“Because they’re animals with animal insticts. As opposed gay people, who are humans”
Humans with instincts. Isn’t that what gays are trying to convey? It’s a gene you’re bred with, it’s instinctual, you don’t choose it, etc?

L. says:

08:36am | 29/06/11

“ive seen many couples get divorced, remarried, divorced, remarried, date someone for a few months, marry, then divorce. So for those who argue against gay marriage because it will someone adversely affect the institution of marriage, im sorry to break it to you but the institution of marriage has been crumbling for years.”

Agreed 100%.

Laura says:

08:59am | 29/06/11

great post David. you sound like a wonderful dad and husband. your family is very lucky.

Alex says:

09:07am | 29/06/11

A wonderful comment, David. Thank you.

Jem says:

09:15am | 29/06/11

I totally agree.

My parents were married and couldn’t conceive children.  They adopted three kids though and that is my family.  This article totally dismisses that family.

When you become a couple, you become a new family.  When you marry you create a new unit.  You and your partner.  Sometimes children may be added.  But it is the married couple that is the base for the new family.  If you don’t view yourself and your husband/wife as a family, then there are issues within the relationship.

I know people who don’t want children but they want to be married, to show that permanent commitment to each other.  The notion that they should not be married because they do not plan to procreate is inane on the most base level.

People have been having children outside of marriage ties for thousands of years.  Marraige does not guarantee a safe happy home for children, given that around 40% of all marriages end in divorce.  Or should we be banning divorce if there are children invovled? 

The ‘institution of marriage’  is badly broken.  The divorce rates are high, people enter into marriage not as a life long commitment but as something they can duck out of when it starts to get tough.  More time is spent planning the wedding than the marriage.  Homosexual couples have done none of that.  At all.  In fact, if you let them marry, you’ll probably see the rate of marriage go up.  I’d have thought that would be a good thing for the marriage advocates.

I’m married.  Not in a church by a minister though.  Not because it was some legal requirement to found a family.  Not because it’s God’s wish or because there’s some mystical element in being married that makes me better than unmarried people.  There’s no sancity in marriage.  Just look at the domestic violence and child abuse that goes on - it happens within married relationships.  Hetrosexual relationships.  That’s not something worth preserving or holding sacred.

Another Chris says:

11:14am | 29/06/11

@ Jem..just because you don’t see the the sacredness in a marriage any more doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

As quoted by you… “There’s no sancity in marriage.  Just look at the domestic violence and child abuse that goes on - it happens within married relationships.  Hetrosexual relationships.  That’s not something worth preserving or holding sacred.”

And abuse happens everywhere, it’s not localised to marriages etc. People are imperfect and you hold the concept of Marriage up on a pedastool. In a way, it should be there. Real marriage still exists and there are billions of married couples around the world that go un-noticed because we would regard their lives as boring (from a media perspective anyway). Tim Cannon does not devalue the idea of adoption either, don’t mold it to suit you purposes.

Adoption should be pursued in the same way as a Married Hetero couple would decide to have a family. Those situations where the couple are unable to have a child are sad and no doubt gut wrenching for them. This is oh-so-different to a gay couple that will know from the get go they can not naturally conceive.

Leave marriage to the Heterosexuals to procreate and live out productive happy lives together, the plus 50% you conveniently forgo to mention.

Banker says:

11:41am | 29/06/11

David, perfectly explained!  Thank you for your sane, sensible and logical response.  Your family is lucky to have such a great husband and father!

Jen says:

11:53am | 29/06/11

David, a fantastic and well thought out comment. I agree with your statements 100%.

Bev says:

11:58am | 29/06/11

Another Chris says:11:14am | 29/06/11
There’s no sancity in marriage.  Just look at the domestic violence and child abuse that goes on - it happens within married relationships.  Hetrosexual relationships.  That’s not something worth preserving or holding sacred.
Another attempt by homosexuals to take the moral high ground.
Yes lets look at DV and abuse. 7% of relationships and 5% of divorcing couples in Australia have or cite DV.  Further more half of the total DV is in the aboriginal population(1.5% of Australia’s population). Lesbian couples have a far higher rate of DV than hetrosexual couples and their split rate seems to be higher than hetrosexual couples.  The absolute majority of physical abuse and neglect is by single mother not intact hetrosexual marriage. The safest and best place for a child is with their biological parents despite what homesuals and feminists like to say.

Jem says:

12:09pm | 29/06/11

@ Another Chris

Yes, people are imperfect.  Marriage doesn’t change that.  Marriage doesn’t make a pairing more profound or more special or a protected species.  My husband and I, we don’t need protection from the dangers of gays being married.  There is no threat to us.  Our marriage is in no way invalidated by gay marriage.  Our commitment to each other isn’t damaged.  How could it possibly be damaged?

“No, the only conceivable reason for binding two people in a lifelong union is because marriage anticipates procreation”

Tim does devalue adoption.  He devalues any union that isn’t specifically for procreation.  This includes later marriages, after being widowed possibly.  Past child bearing years.

He is a bigoted biased individual who places no no value on any union that isn’t a straight mairriage for the purpose of having kids.  You may think I didn’t mention the +50% of still married couples, but that’s the bit I belong to, except that 50% doesn’t always include children.  Tim wants to disregard far more than that.  Since unless that union is for procreation is is not worthy of marriage.

Marriage has changed.  It is hard for people to accept that, I guess it scares them.  People can found a family without a marriage tie.  People can found a family without a blood tie.  People can found a family that isn’t the picture perfect man, woman and two kids. 

Love builds families.  Nothing else.  No state subservience.  No law.  Love is the only true binding tie.  Love is what lets people build lives together, imperfectly.  Love is what should be considered sacred, not marriage.  A legal institution is a hollow thing.  Love is what matters.

Tim says:

12:17pm | 29/06/11

David,
If the institution of marriage has been crumbling for years then surely you would support abolition of it?

Gregg says:

12:18pm | 29/06/11

Amidst the many posts with the typical ” Marriage is meant to be this” attitude, it is refreshing to find yours David and the responses to it.

I think Tim is representative of those who are somewhat overwrought by the concept as you may have been if it was put to you all those years ago and as you say many of our attirudes are because of ingrained views.
Looking at
”  What concerns me is the means that Raj and others are advocating for achieving this outcome, namely, the radical modification of the institution of marriage.

This is why those on my side of the debate tend to focus our argument on the institution itself: why it is the way it is, and why changing it is a bad idea. “

I am not so clear on what Tim’s reference to views of radical modernisation by Raj are but surely, it is not so much changing the institution of marriage but merely modernising it to incorporate all people and as many of Tim’s view will often claim, ” it is just a word ” and if that is so, then they may want to ask themselves why all the drama.
His analogy would seem to be just adding to the drama.

And it is Tim it would seem that wants to tack on the argument of visibility and respect to support why marriage should not be able to apply to all.
It is just so simple and need not be a complex issue but for those who wish to make it so.

Tim then gets into the absurdsphere with his reasoning to want us to believe that marriage is for those to procreate and it is not surprising that more than a few voice their renouncing of that.

Tim, have a big KISS - Keep It Simple [ Not ] Stupid.
And I’m not gay btw.

.

Benevolent Rapscallion says:

01:01pm | 29/06/11

@ David “Over those 40 years I have watched the institution of marriage rot not from gays and lesbians wanting to get married, but from heterosexuals who have treated marriage like a fad, ive seen many couples get divorced, remarried, divorced, remarried, date someone for a few months, marry, then divorce. So for those who argue against gay marriage because it will someone adversely affect the institution of marriage, im sorry to break it to you but the institution of marriage has been crumbling for years.”

Amen! We’re long overdue for the heterosexuals to clean up their own back yard before preaching to homosexuals.

Benevolent Rapscallion says:

01:41pm | 29/06/11

@ Another Chris “Leave marriage to the Heterosexuals to procreate and live out productive happy lives together, the plus 50% you conveniently forgo to mention. “

It’s an incorrect assumption that all couples who stay married are happy together. I know a lot of unhappy people in marriage who are staying together for various reasons - financial, for the children, their parents would be angry/upset with them.

Bev says:

01:47pm | 29/06/11

Benevolent Rapscallion says:01:01pm | 29/06/11

Amen! We’re long overdue for the heterosexuals to clean up their own back yard before preaching to homosexuals.

Maybe they could if feminists stopped trying to tear it down as they have for the last 50 years as part of their agenda.

another kid says:

03:57pm | 29/06/11

David,
I’d just like to say thank you. Not all parents are as understanding when their children come out, you’re son is very lucky to have someone as loving and supportive.

Another Chris says:

05:47pm | 29/06/11

@ Jem:  As quoted by you “Love builds families.  Nothing else.  No state subservience.  No law.  Love is the only true binding tie.  Love is what lets people build lives together, imperfectly.  Love is what should be considered sacred, not marriage.  A legal institution is a hollow thing.  Love is what matters.”

You’re right, to an extent. Love does matter but love is conditional to an extent and love is a feeling. It can come and go and you may not always “feel” love. This is where marriage comes in. Yes- people may have times when they’re unhappily married but those who stay true to “til death do us part” will stay with their partner unconditionally. Marriage is about more than Love. Families are about more than love and need the insurance of a marriage to protect them. There is love, the feeling and love, the act which in marriage is the ultimate sacrifice for the sake of the relationship and stability for offspring.

@Benevolent Rapscallion: You’re right. Not all couples are happy. Marriage is about stability and couples need to work hard at a marriage to keep the love and happiness. As you know, Communication is key- That and not rushing into it. Marriage goes beyond being “happy”..as I said before.. it’s sacrificial and not just a declaration of love and what the wedding industry crack it up to be.

Mark R says:

09:31pm | 29/06/11

David,

What a wonderful insightful post!!!

Much happiness to you and your wife and I too, hope one day that your son can “marry” his partner and share a long happy fullfilling life together, as you have with your partner…

Cheers
MR

Sarah says:

10:50am | 30/06/11

That is a great post David.
I have many opinions on this but one that keeps coming back to me is that as a 22 year old, I can already foresee our future generations looking upon us as an unenlightened and outrageous society for not allowing homosexuals to marry. Equal rights for equal beings. Do we not look back on a time when women couldn’t vote, or when indigenous Australians were not seen as human beings as completely unacceptable? How can everyone not see that this is NOT ok?

Another Chris says:

06:35pm | 30/06/11

@ Sarah: how about equal opportunities for Brothers and Sisters to Marry? They’re beings too right?

Jem says:

09:22am | 29/06/11

Don’t forget late life marriages, after a woman passes through menopause.

So now ther’s an age restriction - marriage is only for the young, fertile and hetrosexual.

Nathan says:

09:04am | 29/06/11

You’re right, Pete. This diatribe is simply a pathetic arguemnt ‘The Punch’ has granted the vested interest group ‘Australian Family Association’ to spew. Kinda poor, really. Should we not hear a rebuttal from say SameSame or the National LGBTI Health Alliance, for example?

While marriage is certainly a sufficient means for procreation, I’m sure it could be universally agreed that marriage is not necessary for procreation. Using the UNHCHR as an authority for your argument is somewhat redundant considering the article was put into force back in 1976. Society and culture seems to have progress significantly since then - it’s a shame the Australian Family Association hasn’t. The views of both the AFA and Mr. Cannon holds are outdated and myopic.

Also, the purpose of metaphors is for them to be “cashed in,” so to speak, to add depth and character to ones argument. Unfortunately, the Bruce Almighty metaphor falls drastically short.

I’ll be looking forward to a reply from the LGBT community if ‘The Punch wants to maintain any credibility.

Matt says:

09:13am | 29/06/11

I saw that too, interesting he chose to poorly defend marriage when his very religion was under attack yesterday by Tory with her Cultbusters article.  Maybe we can expect another laughable defense tomorrow on how his religion is not a cult…

Craig says:

09:31am | 29/06/11

Well…well…well… Good on you Pete for pointing this out! Pity Mr Cannon didn’t feel the need to point this out in his article. Spring bad Tim! Maybe next time you feel the need to bore us all to tears with “Bruce Almighty” etc…maybe you’ll warn us that you’re up to your neck in the “Australian Family Association”.

Whatever credibility you and your quaint little article had - just fizzled out when I read Pete’s post.

You really should declare a bias like this if you’re going to pontificate on such matters as gay marriage.

Craig says:

09:32am | 29/06/11

Well…well…well… Good on you Pete for pointing this out! Pity Mr Cannon didn’t feel the need to point this out in his article. Spring bad Tim! Maybe next time you feel the need to bore us all to tears with “Bruce Almighty” etc…maybe you’ll warn us that you’re up to your neck in the “Australian Family Association”.

Whatever credibility you and your quaint little article had - just fizzled out when I read Pete’s post.

You really should declare a bias like this if you’re going to pontificate on such matters as gay marriage.

Dave-o says:

10:03am | 29/06/11

Nah, he’s a fairly regular “puncher” (must resist urge to make puncher joke) and I do believe in past articles he has declared his allegiance/pay-for-comment position.

Markus says:

12:47pm | 29/06/11

My God, Pete! Thank you for opening our eyes to this clearly deliberate conspiracy!
Without you here, I never would have realised that this hidden agenda has been so deeply covered up, that the only find way to find out was by clicking on the author’s f***ing name!

Steve says:

02:20pm | 29/06/11

“It would of course be the ethical thing to declare up front in this sort of article that the author is a spokesperson for a socially-conservative organisation devoted to anti-gay bigotry.”

Hmm…  should it matter that the author is socially conservative?  Or a Christian?  It’s funny to read of those crying out for tolerance and understanding for the gay community, but yet show none when there’s an argument to the contrary.  It’s a community debate for crying out loud!

By the above statement and the direct link to the author’s profile and the ensuing mocking, it really pushes the boundaries of a ‘debate’ to more of a ‘mob mentality’.

I get what the author is trying to get across (the movie analogy was not a very good one though).  As it stands, the institution of marriage and it’s laws are to provide a situation where the couple involved ‘intend’ to spend the rest of their lives in a loyal, committed relationship.  I’ll come back to this in a moment.

The author also wrote that the reason why this act (marriage) is intended to be long term and for as long as they live is the ‘assumption’ that they will ‘found a family’.  Somebody wrote earlier of the definition of found… there was no need, the article did the homework for them “the Commission states: “The right to found a family implies, in principle, the possibility to procreate and live together””.

Please read the fine print… specifically the words ‘implies’, ‘in principle’ and ‘possibility’.  All of these words signify general assumptions for that couple to grow their family should they decide to whether naturally or by other means.  This does not mean to exclude, people should stop reading inbetween the lines as it adds unecessary complexities and emotions into the debate and ruins their argument completely.

Married couples don’t get it right, even though they intend to get it right and stay together throughout their lives and because they don’t get it right at times -insert facts and figures - surely that means that the homosexual community will come in and fix it all up?  That successful marriages will go up, domestic abuse will go down and homosexuals will finally be treated like heterosexuals? 

This is a point that is perplexing to me, that male to male and femle to female relationships are and will always be different to male and female relationships, it doesn’t matter how many changes in the social agenda occur, or changes to law are made… at it’s core, homosexuals and heterosexuals will ALWAYS be different.  If tolerance and acceptance is what is sought after, well judging by the comments by this and other blogs, public opinion polls and surveys and the media… it seems to be already there, or am I incorrect in thinking this?

Changing the current marriage laws, acts, charters, documents etc… not just nationally, but internationally is a HUGE task, this is something that’s got to be understood.  Tolerance and equality will never exist on this earth, personally though, I think it’s great that the homosexual community have acheived tolerance in society and I think it’s due to the ability to see them as fellow humans and not just what they choose to do privately.

But I also think that this tolerance has been built from the ground up and painstakingly so, by those brave enough to show their differences, and take those differences and successfully adapt it into the mainstream, these are things I’m sure they’re proud of. 

Homosexual relationships aren’t new, but their acceptance to society is reasonably so with the ‘heart and soul’ of their acceptance being the differences that are celebrated and proudly except for now, so what’s changed?  Has marriage halted the progress of homosexuality?  According to most of the comments on this page… it has.  My response?  Gimme a break.

Jason Todd says:

08:44am | 29/06/11

I hate to piss on your bonfire Dan, but the death of the ‘Holy union that is marriage’ happened a long long time ago.
About the same time that anyone could get hitched because it is the ‘trendy’ thing to do (Think Britney Spears’ 55 hour marriage).
I don’t really think divorce rates will spike ‘like crazy’. I think that they will rise, sure. But comparable to the same number of heterosexual couples that get married then divorced. Then again, you might be suprised at the number of gay couples that value their marriage more because they had to fight so hard for it.

In a strange way, I could understand all of this anti-gay marriage backlash if the institution of marriage was still just that. If it was still a “one man, one woman, one god. bound for life” religious ceremony with all the connotations, then I would probably fall on the side of those fighting for it’s preservation.
But that isn’t what marriage is now. It hasn’t been that for a very long time. It has been redefined and redefined as it suits us for decades. It will be redefined again.

These days it is more about a celebration of love and the promise of an enduring union, and that is something that any couple, gay or straight should be able to partake in.

Another Chris says:

06:09pm | 29/06/11

Jason, you make a hell of a lot of assumptions in there.
That and you redefine the idea of marriage so it removes gender and suits your wait for it…a-gender.
Tell that to my Parents who have been together ...actually, tell that to my whole family who we have not one divorced couple…we’re talking 25+ years each and over 175 years between all of them.
Tell that to my Uncle who has stuck by my Aunty that is crippled with an aggressive form of MS. Or the guy that Marry’s his brain damaged fiance because that’s the promise he made to her… and now I think about it, 100% of my Friends parents? Still married.  the principles of Marriage are alive and well and the fact that you don’t see it is your problem. 

To be frank, I don’t think you wan’t to see it alas you eat your words and support marriage as a heterosexual union only.

I am engaged and will give my Fiance that kind of commitment til death do us part. 

Marriage hasn’t been re-defined. It will never be redefined. It’s just been abused and used . A lot of married couples out there would be insulted to think that their relationship is a farce because the media and magazines portray it that way.

Bev says:

07:41pm | 29/06/11

@ Another Chis   Good post. Trouble is homosexuals and feminists cherry pick the bad and ignore the large number of good. Hence attempting to “prove” they are better and occupy the high moral ground.

mel says:

08:53pm | 29/06/11

Another Chris and Bev, why do you think gay couples won’t manage the commitment that your relations show? Do you think gay people are all flighty, do you think gay people can’t love in the same way as you do, do you think they can’t be brave and selfless?

Do you think gay men and women aren’t just like you with all the same loves, fears, doubts that humans have? Do you think their relationships don’t have the same depth as yours? Do you think they are somehow inferior?

Please explain!

Another Chris says:

11:29pm | 29/06/11

@ Mel: I have no issue with Gay people (as hard to believe as that may be).
I know they they are capable of love and commitment..they are people, no difference to Heterosexual in all aspects bar sexuality. I just believe marriage belongs to heterosexual’s. To me, it ties to a supportive, stable environment for Children. In what is almost their own admission- Homosexuals forfeit the the right to have children by default in the fact that neither can naturally reproduce biologically. It’s not that they’re infertile (because infertile hetero couples have the necessary organs to potentially make a baby when combined) it’s that they can’t reproduce, period. Not with out the introduction of third party.
Gay couples have the Civil union. They’re recognised as a couple. Just the other week on Grey’s Anatomy, the gay couple were complaining that they go down to the local town hall and commit to each other (which they inferred was not enough). Go to a celebrant and “unioned” or what ever you wish to call it. The right to adopt or IVF is nullified in that they are not, and never will be able to biologically create a family unit.
Marriage is Man and Woman, Suit and Dress, He and She. It is the not only the foundation of a Loving Relationship that is for all accounts your last Partner but also the insurance policy for the Children that they may or may not have.

Another Chris says:

11:37pm | 29/06/11

@ Bev, Thanks, I do understand the emotional driver behind Homosexuals wanting Marriage so of course they will make an argument where possible facts are facts though. They are trying to adopt a heterosexual concept that is merely a token missing the biological aspect completely. Cant pick and mix.

@Mel, one more thing: I’m not saying Homosexuals aren’t capable of committing, most individuals are capable of that. What I am saying is; to those that are trying to devalue marriage and say that its is now a farce, an empty act…it’s not. I’m giving many examples of married, committed Heterosexuals. It actually seems rather ironic…Trying to devalue the very union you wish to make you’re own

Jason Todd says:

08:15am | 30/06/11

Another Chris, I feel that you may have misinterpreted what I was going for here. I was not saying that there are not still traditional marriages. I am not saying that everyone views marriage as a short term plan. And I was certainly not saying that there are not people who value marriage.

What I am saying however is that it is a very long bow to draw to say that marriage carries with it the same gravitas that it used to. While some may still consider it as such, it is not even a purely holy union anymore. If you are honestly saying that marriage has endured without redefinition since its inception, then I would have to disagree.

Does that devalue all the marriages that have ever occurred? I’d say no. If your confidence in your marriage and the strength of your relationship depends solely on the viability of other people’s marriages and the way that they treat them, I would suggest that there are greater problems at play.

Horrible pun on your part aside, I don’t really have an agenda here. I’ve got no dog in this fight. I’m not gay. If I wanted to get married I could do so tomorrow. I guess it just rubs me the wrong way that something that is so easy for me is impossible for someone else in the same situation. The last 100 years have seen a massive social and cultural revolution, including the redefinition of gender roles. I guess I am just confused as to why this is so readily accepted, but this is one area where we still hold out.
At the end of the day, what is most important to you about your fiance? Is it the fact that you are in love with and committed to him/her? Or is it that they have the right bits?

Another Chris says:

07:07pm | 30/06/11

@Jason,
I see where you’re coming from. While Marriage is strictly not a Church run affair any more,  It’s a big (BIG) step to redefine the sexuality of Marriage (if I can say that?). Whilst it may not be centered around God/Church for some any more, that shouldn’t detract from it’s ability to create a secure stable environment to procreate (with the right bits, of course)
Removing this element of commitment from a marriage (i.e reducing it to “love” only) is the main issue I have. Marriage is not strictly about love in my opinion. Love, the feeling can come and go but a Marriage stays strong through that (or should) and it acts as (I’ve said it before) an insurance policy or sorts for the offspring.. If a couple really want to divorce, they will…but the State makes it hard to do so.
So…saying this, it is never possible for a Homosexual couple to reproduce without the involvement of someone else. This then redefines the very essence of the family unit (in which Marriage is core IMO)
it’s not only a huge change, it’s a polar shift in terms of the way our society was founded. It goes beyond voting and work equality…it’s the very essence of how we’ve come to exist.
PS. The Pun was terrible…I have a bad sense of humour in that regard

Bev says:

10:26am | 29/06/11

Look at marriage now - really take a close look at what it entails and there is no reason at all why a gay couple cannot fulfil the same role in marriage as a hetro couple. It’s about choice.

Children raised in a homsexual marriage will never equate to the children raised in an intact hetrosexual marriage not matter how hard they try. Its seems their choice doesn’t count.

Brendan says:

11:22am | 29/06/11

Bev,
Are you saying the children of gay people will never be equal to the children of hetrosexual people? 

That’s a pretty strong position to take.

Fred Phillips says:

11:57am | 29/06/11

“Children raised in a homsexual marriage will never equate to the children raised in an intact hetrosexual marriage not matter how hard they try. Its seems their choice doesn’t count.”

Seriously, do you have anything other than your prejudice to support this? Because the social science is against you.

Something doesn’t become true just because you believe it strongly.

Bev says:

12:11pm | 29/06/11

I would say the same thing about blended marriages and single parent families.  Studies show that to be the case.  You don’t have to look at studies either. You just have to look at the number of difunctional children/teenagers/young adults to know that. Though this is not the sole reason but it is a large contributing factor.

Gavin says:

12:54pm | 29/06/11

Bev - based on what do you make that statement?  If there were an ounce of credibility to what you are saying, psychologists would be up in arms about the legalisation of same sex adoptions / surrogacy arrangement - but they aren’t.  You’re letting your prejudice get in the way of the facts.

Fred Phillips says:

01:50pm | 29/06/11

Sorry, Bev, but your prejudices and anecdotal theories count for nothing. There is plenty of social research out there to establish children of gay couples are not disadvantaged in any way as against hetero couples.

Bev says:

02:06pm | 29/06/11

Gavin says:12:54pm | 29/06/11
There are many who are and have produced evidence.  Like this debate they are drowned out by a vocal few. If the subject you mention were not controversial legislation would just sail through parliment but it doesn’t does it and normally comes down to a conscience vote.

Bias?  Yes I do have a bias that is centered around children and what this could mean for children.  I have no argument against homosexuals and are fully accepting of them as most are except on this subject.

Gavin says:

05:28pm | 29/06/11

@ Bev - kinda like how white people were happy to share the bus with black people, provided they went up the back, right?
I’m sure such an arguments such as “Think about the children” were used against the concept of a black man coming into a white restaurant.  You’re scared of the ghost in the cupboard that only you can see.
So where is this evidence you speak of?  I’m talking peer reviewed articles published in mainstream scientific journals.

Alex says:

09:04am | 29/06/11

You say: “One side of the argument simply don’t want to hear anything the other side have to say” and you’re right. I see here lots of detailed counter-arguments from people who have read the article in detail and have clearly and precisely commented about it.

Your comment, however, is to ‘leave marriage alone’. Hardly an insightful and in-depth argument. I think I know who is not listening.

I’d like to “show some respect” to homosexual people by allowing them the same rights that I have.

Anubis says:

10:34am | 29/06/11

@ Alex - As for showing some respect, yes I agree with you. Let them devise their own terminology for the contract of marriage and leave the term marriage as what it is a bond between man and wife, also I would like to see the word gay returned to the general community. If you are homosexual you are homosexual, you are not necessarily, gay, happy, joyous, or unicorns. Call it what it is and stop hijacking words for personal agenda. Heterosexual are just that heterosexual we do not need to hijack words to make our case.

Jason Todd says:

01:00pm | 29/06/11

Anubis, are you suggesting that we give back the word straight? I suppose you would then go on to suggest that all slang be returned to the original meanings?

Gavin says:

01:01pm | 29/06/11

@Anubis - “Heterosexual are just that heterosexual we do not need to hijack words to make our case” - you mean words like “Straight”?

Anubis says:

02:13pm | 29/06/11

@ Gavin - the term straight to denote heterosexual is a term adopted and used by the homosexual community at about the same time they hijacked gay.

Gavin says:

05:33pm | 29/06/11

@Anubis - The adaptation “Straight” came along WAY after “Gay” was used… The fact you’re trying to reclaim ownership of it though is just petty, and a veiled jab at the gay community than any real objection over the use of the word.

Tim says:

11:37am | 29/06/11

So we should accept everyone, but on what terms? Do we only accept people on the basis that they agree with our own worldview? Do we accept Muslims as Muslims, and Catholics as Catholics, and murderers as murderers, and racists as racists, and hippies as hippies, and climate deniers as climate deniers, and homophobes as homophobes?

Are we supposed to accept them and love them as they are?

Or do you have to impose your ideals on all of those people first, before they can join your lovely world family of love?

Craig says:

09:57am | 29/06/11

Hahaha ... You can’t be serious?!

This is not an “article”... He resorted to mentioning a Jim Carey movie to support his “point”.

Hello!??? Alarm bells should have gone off at the moment you got to this paragraph.

It’s Australian Family Association propaganda written by their spin man Tim Cannon.

“Good article”... What nonsense!

LeonT says:

09:47am | 29/06/11

Whenever I see “family” in the title of an institution, I replace it with “my family” so that it accurately portrays the people involved.

“My Family First”
“My Australian Family Association”

Zee says:

10:37am | 29/06/11

Hahah - love it LeonT

Chris_D says:

09:16am | 29/06/11

Interesting that you feel the onus is on the other side to produce a reasonable argument why homosexuals should not be able to marry.  I would think common sense suggests it is up to the same-sex marriage movement to provide a clear and concise argument for why they should be allowed to marry.

Personally, I don’t feel the “they can, so why can’t we” argument is valid either.  Do you have something better to put forward?

Ben says:

09:43am | 29/06/11

I’m still waiting for an explanation of why fundamentally reordering the definition of a word that represents a foundational institution of our society will be a good thing . . . The onus of proof is on those agitating for change.

AliceC says:

09:45am | 29/06/11

Sure Chris. How about gay couples deserve the same right to have their union legally recognised by the state? I married my husband because I love him and want to spend the rest of my life with him, and if this had been denied to me I would have been extremely upset. We didn’t get married because we want to procreate, and we didn’t feel a de-facto relationship was the right status for us.

So, heterosexual people have that choice, and I think gay people should have the same choice.

Danny B says:

10:21am | 29/06/11

@ Chris_D

Personally, I don’t feel the “they haven’t been able to before, they shouldn’t be able to” argument is valid, either.  Do you have something better to put forward?

CJ Morgan says:

10:48am | 29/06/11

@ Chris_D:

Of course it’s up to those who want to deny rights to one section of the community to have to justify their discrimination.  Like AliceC, I’m still waiting to hear or read an argument against same sex marriage that is either fair or reasonable. 

This article is nothing more than a piece of quite well-written sophistry, written by a shill for a fundamentalist Christian organisation.  Fortunately, both he and they know that they’ve lost this argument, so they ought to look at why it is that they’re so far out of step with most of us on this issue.

Chris_D says:

11:01am | 29/06/11

I agree with you in principle Alice, and it is my opinion most of those who “oppose” same-sex marriage actually oppose the term “marriage”.  If we can agree on this, then this whole debate could move forward quickly and I would expect rather effortlessly.  Someone suggested “Merried”, but if all the exact same rights were offered under a different name, shouldn’t this appease the majority on both sides?

@Danny_B, I don’t have to provide any argument because I am not advocating for change.  Those who propose the change have to sell the message.

AliceC says:

11:40am | 29/06/11

@Chris_D

It would actually be much faster, and significantly cheaper for the tax payer, to adjust the wording of the current Marriage Act, than create another whole new Act called ‘Merriage’.

Chris_D says:

11:44am | 29/06/11

CJ Morgan, “Of course it’s up to those who want to deny rights to one section of the community to have to justify their discrimination”. 

There is no one being discriminated against, no rights being denied.  Tell me what right is being denied.  Please, tell us all so we know!

AliceC says:

12:05pm | 29/06/11

Chris D

“There is no one being discriminated against, no rights being denied.  Tell me what right is being denied.  Please, tell us all so we know!”

The right to marry

Fred Phillips says:

12:06pm | 29/06/11

“There is no one being discriminated against, no rights being denied.  Tell me what right is being denied.  Please, tell us all so we know!”

Are you joking? The right to marry is being denied to gay people. Now you know!

So, got any arguments against gay marriage, Chris?

Bev says:

12:29pm | 29/06/11

AliceC says:11:40am | 29/06/11
It would actually be much faster, and significantly cheaper for the tax payer, to adjust the wording of the current Marriage Act, than create another whole new Act called ‘Merriage’.

Yes and drive the spending on assisted reproduction through the roof as homosexual couples lined up in droves. Anybody who says they wouldn’t is deluding themselves.

CJ Morgan says:

12:52pm | 29/06/11

@ Chris_D:

Now you’re just being obtuse, which is another sure sign you’ve lost the argument.  Adults in Australia typically have the right to legally marry their life partners if both parties wish, unless they happen to be homosexual.  Fortunately, an overwhelming majority of Australians agree that this situation infringes upon their rights and that the law ought to be changed to correct this injustice.

Face it, mate - on this issue you’re just plain wrong.  If you can’t accept that reality gracefully, could you please just STFU?  It’s not only wrong, it’s boring.

Gavin says:

01:06pm | 29/06/11

@Bev - and with a falling fertility rate that’s a bad thing why?

Chris_D says:

02:12pm | 29/06/11

@CJ Morgan & Fred Phillips
Before women had the right to vote, they weren’t being denied this right, they just didn’t have it.  They demanded the right to vote, and got it.  Now they have the right.  The same applies with this issue.  While you keep claiming same-sex couples are being denied something they have no entitlement to, I will keep advising you that you are wrong. 

If yourselves, like most of the same-sex advocates changed your tone, changed your tack and change your rhetoric, and started asking for reform rather than continually claiming homosexual couples are missing out on their rights, and demanding marriage be changed to accommodate this view, then more people would be willing to listen to your arguments, myself included.

Bev says:

03:26pm | 29/06/11

Gavin says:01:06pm | 29/06/11

and with a falling fertility rate that’s a bad thing why? 
Don’t you think that working towards the strengthening of marriage and lesening the monetary and other pressures families face (the reason why births are falling)  would be better than introducing another factor into childrens existance.

CJ Morgan says:

03:27pm | 29/06/11

@ AliceC:

Yeah, rights don’t exist where they’re denied… Charming.

Just as well what you think about human rights ultimately doesn’t count in a democracy.  Suck up the irony of your situation

Fred Phillips says:

03:29pm | 29/06/11

“Before women had the right to vote, they weren’t being denied this right, they just didn’t have it.  They demanded the right to vote, and got it.  Now they have the right.  The same applies with this issue.  While you keep claiming same-sex couples are being denied something they have no entitlement to, I will keep advising you that you are wrong.”

That’s some circular logic you’ve got going there, Chris_D. Mind-boggling stuff. They can’t demand the right to marry because they’ve got no entitlement to it? I’m sure gay people would say they have an entitlement to it, as a matter of fairness. If you want to present an argument as to why they have no entitlement to it in your view, go ahead. You haven’t done that yet.

“If yourselves, like most of the same-sex advocates changed your tone, changed your tack and change your rhetoric, and started asking for reform rather than continually claiming homosexual couples are missing out on their rights, and demanding marriage be changed to accommodate this view, then more people would be willing to listen to your arguments, myself included.”

Rubbish.

That’s some circular logic you’ve got going there, Chris_D. Mind-boggling stuff. They can’t demand the right to marry because they’ve got no entitlement to it? I’m sure gay people would say they have an entitlement to it, as a matter of fairness. If you want to present an argument as to why they have no entitlement to it in your view, go ahead, but it’s impossible to

Gavin says:

05:41pm | 29/06/11

@ Bev
>and with a falling fertility rate that’s a bad thing why?
>>Don’t you think that working towards the strengthening of marriage and lesening the monetary and other pressures families face (the reason why births are falling)  would be better than introducing another factor into childrens existance.

You really think a drop in the strength of marriage to date is the reason births are falling?  My sister is married, but her and her husband have decided they don’t want children.  Are you saying their marriage is weaker than yours because of this choice?  My sister’s conscious choice to not have children is just as much of a conscious choice as yours to have them (if you have any).  Marriage has nothing to do with their decision to not have any.

If increasing our birth rates is a priority, then why not allow homosexual couples to marry and have children.  They’re already doing the children part - so if a marriage makes their family stronger, then it’s those who stand against it who are actually doing those children a disservice.

Gavin says:

01:09pm | 29/06/11

I think that’s kinda the point here.  Expose the true backgrounds and sentiments of those who are against same sex marriage and you’ll give them a noose to hang themselves in.  Bravo to the punch!

Matt F says:

09:53am | 29/06/11

Early evidence of marriage shows not only were 12/13/14 year olds able to do it in numerous cultures but also that marriage was not the choice of the couple actually getting married but the decision of the families (mainly parents) often made to financially, or socially, benefit the family as a whole. The fact we no longer follow these aspects of marriage indicates we are more then willing to change the definition of marriage to suit our own society.

Nobody here is seriously suggesting that childless couples can’t get married. they are merely pointing out that if your argument to deny same sex marriage is because of procreation then logically you must also be in favour of denying it to infertile couples, those who choose to be childless etc. Otherwise the arguement has no consistency in its application and lacks all credibility which therefore makes it irrelevant.

Fred Phillips says:

12:09pm | 29/06/11

“To those who are suggesting that childless, infertile or menopausal couples should not be allowed to be married based on an incapacity to produce children is ridiculous and is the sort of comment that makes most people not have an interest in listening to the same-sex couple marriage debate.”

Except nobody is actually suggesting that. They’re just pointing out that is the inescapable logical extension of Tim’s “marriage is about procreation” argument. Can you tell the difference?

Jem says:

12:26pm | 29/06/11

Exactly What Matt_F says.

The way society conducts marriages has changed over the centuries.  Some places still have dowries, but mostly that has gone.  The idea of rape inside a marriage being legal has gone.  Child marriages has gone.  Arranged marriages aren’t the done thing for the most part. 

The logic used in the article has a natural extension to things such as late life marriages.  If a couple are past child bearing age, then what reason is there for them to get married?  If the author wishes to base their opposition to gay marriage on procreation, then they must accept that base will be extraopolated out to other relevant scenarios.

AliceC says:

09:52am | 29/06/11

Me thinks Barry missed the genetics lession at school….

Chris_D says:

11:14am | 29/06/11

While your method is poor, your point is correct.  It is not about equal rights, which as I have stated before, we already have.  I have no more rights than any homosexual man (as far as I know).  I can marry a woman, and so can he.  I can’t marry a man, and neither can he.

An inter-family union could easily meet all the arguments raised; love, consent, age, ability to procreate etc.  The only downfall is the rule of common sense.  But that seems to be missing from most of this debate anyway.

Nil by mouth says:

11:26am | 29/06/11

@ AliceC - Me thinks homosexuals missed the anatomy and physiology lesson at school. Honey, you don’t put petrol where the oil goes!

AliceC says:

11:49am | 29/06/11

Nil by mouth

Do you honestly think that no heterosexual couples ‘pour petrol where the gas goes’? Expressing love (an emotion) is entirely different to genetics (nature).

Tim says:

12:24pm | 29/06/11

Alice C,
are you a fan of Eugenics by any chance?

Kika says:

01:32pm | 29/06/11

I’m pretty sure they skipped over that in my HRE lessons. And science lessons. I’m pretty sure humans, bonobos and dolphins are the only critters that mate for reasons other than procreation therefore the fact that so far the only organically biological outcome in producing children is the union of a man and a woman then it’s safe to say that other types unions are unnatural.

Fred Phillips says:

02:00pm | 29/06/11

Who appointed you arbiter of what is common sense, Chris-D? Nobody, that’s who. A majority of Australians support gay marriage, so your “sense” isn’t as common as you apparently believe.

Barry, do you seriously believe you should have the right to marry your father, or is this a failed attempt at either humour or a “gotcha” on your part? I’m not sure that there’s much call in the community to repeal laws that prevent intra-family marriage. Meanwhile, gay marriage has the support of a large majority of Australians. Also, there are good policy reasons why you should not be allowed to marry your father, and I’m sure you know what they are. You get that these are two completely different things, right?

Sadly, I think your comment is about typical of the quality of opposition to gay marriage.

bec says:

02:37pm | 29/06/11

Barry, you might want to have sex with your own dad, but the rest of Australia feels differently.

There is a hotline to help with that…

Chris_D says:

02:58pm | 29/06/11

@Fred Phillips; I don’t believe anyone appointed me, and i don’t recall claiming to be the “arbiter of what is common sense”. But as it turns out, you actually agree with me, judging by your comments.

“Barry, do you seriously believe you should have the right to marry your father, or is this a failed attempt at either humour or a “gotcha” on your part?”

“Sadly, I think your comment is about typical of the quality of opposition to gay marriage. “

Both suggest that you do in fact agree with my comments.
I appreciate your support.

It also suggests you don’t even know what you are arguing for, but you are just arguing.

Jason Todd says:

03:30pm | 29/06/11

@Chris_D.  Would you have made the same argument of the civil rights movement?

“They aren’t being denied any rights! If I was a black man, I wouldn’t be able to sit in the front of the bus, because he is a black man, neither can he”

@ Kika. I take it then that you think that marriage as an institution is unnatural given that a tiny percentage of animals are monogamous?

Fred Phillips says:

03:32pm | 29/06/11

“But as it turns out, you actually agree with me, judging by your comments.”

Really? Then in addition to lacking “common sense”, you have poor comprehension as well.

Ben says:

09:52am | 29/06/11

But every Australian adult has the same legal entitlement to marry in the same way that is determined for everybody else, according to the definition set out in the marriage act. This definition applies equally to everybody. This whole debate is about changing the definition of marriage from something it has always been understood to be to something completely arbitrary and without context in history, culture or biology.

Get it! says:

10:23am | 29/06/11

Marriage is a hetero rite, the union of man and woman so hands off gays and lesbians. ... do what you like but marriage is all hetero fullstop.

Bobster says:

10:51am | 29/06/11

@ Get It!

I disagreed with you until I saw your name. I get it now.

I’ll inform all my gay friends.

Cheers.

Bev says:

11:04am | 29/06/11

That a great endorsement of free speech not.

marley says:

10:23am | 29/06/11

If gays accept that children have the right to be raised by their biological parents, then so must divorced heterosexuals accept it.  But of course, that’s not actually what happens in most cases, is it?  So why impose on gays a restriction not imposed on heterosexuals?

Bev says:

01:07pm | 29/06/11

@marley Society accepts Mum and dad are the the best option for children and one to be aimed at. All other options blended families etc are not as good.  Homosexuals can never be the best option from the start.

marley says:

03:01pm | 29/06/11

@Bev - well, you know, lots of societies think the best option for children is to be raised by the entire clan, not just by the biological parents. some societies leave child-raising to the grandparents.  Some leave it to the harem.  Some have their kids raised by boarding schools.  And our society seems to favour a mix of parents, step-parents and day care centers.  Sorry, but I don’t see a childhood in a stable, same-sex parental home, as being any worse than a lot of the other options being practised out there - and it ‘s a lot better than some.

Nick42 says:

03:18pm | 29/06/11

Bev I have been reading this blog without contributing but you are getting pretty annoying with your assertions that only the biological parents are the best option. You have failed to post one link proving this even though numerous people in this blog have given you evidence to the contrary and asked for proof of your assertions.

I have seen a number of kids over the years grow into good people who are not in this perfect family, single mum or dad families, a couple of gay families or the most common stepdads or stepmums being looked up to more than the original parent. This is not to say that you cannot be brought up by the biological parents, as I was, and still be a good person but it is not a guarantee.

In any study I have read about the rearing of children it was stated that children of either sex need a good male and female role model and they didn’t have to be the direct parent. Personally I would like to look at the studies you keep insisting on about a stable biological parent family as I wonder whether they actually state a stable family life.

Bev says:

08:13pm | 29/06/11

@Nick42
I do not intend to repeat endlessly what I have posted.
As to studies I sugest you look at my post
Bev says:05:09pm | 29/06/11
in responce to
remlap says:02:22pm | 29/06/11

@marley
“as being any worse than a lot of the other options being practised out there - and it ‘s a lot better than some”.
What other cultures do is not what this culture does. We may learn from it and adopt parts of it if its good. Operative word “worse” glass half full half empty argument. Day care centers good and bad and there is a lot of discussion out there about this.

Nick42 says:

09:41am | 30/06/11

Bev I have had a look at your post and as per remlap’s comment you have failed to post one link to any study even though you have mentioned it a number of times. You stated above that you have kids and therefore I must think you are old enough where you understand that if you say it enough it does not make it true. If you want to go around making so called statements of facts saying there are studies out there proving your point then post a link otherwise anything you say could just be made up. You made the initial call back IT up.

iansand says:

09:39am | 29/06/11

There is no religious argument.  I married my (ex)wife at the Kiosk restaurant at Shelly Beach.  It was celebrated by a civil celbrant.  No whiff of god or church anywhere.  Yet Tim would not deny that I had a marriage.

Blazes says:

10:01am | 29/06/11

“This is probably the weakest, ill-thought-out article I have read on the punch.”

Did you read the two articles in support of gay marriage yesterday??? At least this article provides an argument - the ones in favor do not.

“there is no counter-argument to gay marriage other than the religious one”

So the UN is now a religious institution, is it? And Julia Gillard is now religious?

Craig says:

09:45am | 29/06/11

Bev,

Everyone knows Kerryn Phelps is gay.

She is very well known as a lesbian and a doctor. We all know where Kerryn Phelps stands on such matters. She has never hidden the fact.

Mr Cannon however does not enjoy the same public profile as Dr. Phelps.

If Tim Cannon is going to peddle the Australian Family Association’s line then he really should point out that he is not only representing the AFA, but the fact that he is a spokesman for the organisation.

This is not journalism… It’s propaganda.

LeonT says:

10:02am | 29/06/11

Please learn what free speech is.

Pointing out that his arguments are not sound and that he is employed by an organisation with an irrational vested interest in making life difficult for families with gay people are not attacks on free speech. They are attacks on his credibility, and completely justified.

Bev says:

10:50am | 29/06/11

@Craig
Everyone knows Kerryn Phelps is gay.
Do they? I would suggest different. I personally check the Bio so I can gage where a person is coming from. A great many don’t. In any case if you check her Bio there is no mention that she is a lesbian unlike Tim’s Bio which tells you exactly where he is coming from.

Bev says:

10:56am | 29/06/11

@LeonT The same could be said about homosexuals who have articles in the punch.

“They are attacks on his credibility, and completely justified”.

I prefer to attempt to put up counter arguments not attack the person something those supporting homosexual marriage are more prone to do.

LeonT says:

11:51am | 29/06/11

@Bev “The same could be said about homosexuals who have articles in the punch.”

Incorrect. You are treating gay people and those who have an irrational prejudice against gay people as somehow equivalent; they are not.

Gay people are experts on being gay and are quite justified in writing articles about how law disrminates against them. Tim is no expert either on being gay or on the effects that gay marriage may have on our society. His argument essentially boils down to “Marriage is between a man and a woman becuase we changed the law to make it that way in 2004”. This argument deserves to be ridiculed and the only reason he’s been given a public voice is because he works for an influential organisation. They too deserve this ridicule.

joshwhite says:

12:13pm | 29/06/11

@ Bev - I thought everyone knew Dr Kerryn Phelps was gay, the story about how she decided she was gay and made the lifestyle choice to become a lesbian (there goes the ‘god made me gay’ theory) is well known, and her subsequent adornement of ghastly jewellery that only lesbians wear makes it pretty obvious.

Bev says:

12:52pm | 29/06/11

@LeonT If I had to judge influence I would say the number of articles written by homosexuals pushing for marriage in the punch in the fairfax press and the ABC (which censors comments against) far excedes the the number of articles against.
Just because you don’t like his organization does not mean he should shutup. Truth be known I do find I am not in agreement with some of their positions but that doesn’t mean I can tell them to take tape their mouths.
By your logic only homosexual politicians are the only ones able to vote on legislation which affects homosexual people. It seems you don’t have the same views on democracy as most.

LeonT says:

01:25pm | 29/06/11

Bev.

“If I had to judge influence I would say the number of articles written by homosexuals pushing for marriage in the punch in the fairfax press and the ABC (which censors comments against) far excedes the the number of articles against.”

This is unsurprising as a) most people in this country support same sex marriage and b) the secular arguments against it are quite weak.

I think you will find that the ABC refuses to give a public voice to hatemongers which is why those comments are moderated out. If only the punch were so vigilant.

“By your logic only homosexual politicians are the only ones able to vote on legislation which affects homosexual people. It seems you don’t have the same views on democracy as most.”

Your premise is incorrect. My thinking is that legislation should be based on expert advice (including the lived experience of gay people) and sound arguments. This article contains neither and so should be ignored. The only reason this article in the public sphere is because of the deep pockets and subsequent political influence of the AFA, which, since you bring up twisted ideas of democracy, is quite pertinent.

marley says:

11:02am | 29/06/11

Perhaps Tim might also have quoted the following, from the same document:

“Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. “

If marriage is a right as defined in Art23, , then it must be made available to all, “without distinction of any kind.”  Limiting it to heterosexuals is certainly a distinction, now isn’t it?

Bobster says:

11:21am | 29/06/11

Yes, Marley but they don’t explicitly say homosexuals can marry which must therefore explicitly means homosexuals can not marry.

Makes as much sense as the rest of the argument.

James1 says:

11:29am | 29/06/11

What do you have against the civil rights movement John?  Are you sick of dark skinned people sitting at the front of the bus?  Do you think that recognising that blacks are equal to whites is “cultural subversion”?

Trjn says:

10:48am | 29/06/11

Marriage is mentioned in the Bible.

A rapist must marry their victim and pay the victim’s father some pieces of silver.

A widow must marry her brother-in-law if she does not bear children before her husband’s death.

There’s also some polygamy and whatnot thrown in for good measure.

Of course, that’s Old Testament so “it doesn’t count”, even though the bit about men lying with other men is also Old Testament (and so is the bit that forbids wearing clothing of mixed fibers).

Brendo says:

02:39pm | 29/06/11

A bit confused…do you hate gays or muslims?

Shandi75 says:

07:44pm | 29/06/11

Maybe my marriage was nothing more than an attention seeking farce as well seeing as I had a civil ceremony on the water front & I’m not planning on having kids?

Marriage is no longer essentially a religious service. I have been to many weddings - and only 1 in a church. When asked why they got married in a church, it was to keep their parents happy.

Matt says:

07:55pm | 29/06/11

I think he hates gay religious muslims?  I got lost in the ramblings..

Chris_D says:

12:32pm | 29/06/11

False Dave, LGBT individuals are not denied the right to marry.  I am a hetrosexual male, and I am not legally allowed to marry another man.  My rights are not being denied, and neither are theirs.

Danny B says:

02:01pm | 29/06/11

Oh, FFS

Chris_D, you have a right to marry the person you love.  They don’t.

Does it need to be clearer than that?

Fred Phillips says:

02:03pm | 29/06/11

Chris_D,
Repeating your lame gotcha over and over doesn’t make it any less lame. I think we’re all aware that heterosexual people can’t marry people of the same gender. We’re talking about people’s right to marry their life-partner, regardless of gender. Do you have anything sensible to contribute to the discussion on that?

Chris_D says:

03:14pm | 29/06/11

I agree, it is getting boring.  I see why some people would rather just change the rules of marriage, rather than stand up to same-sex marriage advocates and ask why they can’t just settle on something just the same as hetero marriage, but with different terms.

You are like whingeing children.  “I want the toy the other kid has, simply because he had it first. I don’t want the one that looks exactly the same.  It’s not fair!”

Fred Phillips says:

03:38pm | 29/06/11

“You are like whingeing children.  “I want the toy the other kid has, simply because he had it first. I don’t want the one that looks exactly the same.  It’s not fair!” “

And yet, ironically, this comment quoted above is probably the most childish one here.

If you have any rational, logical arguments against gay marriage, feel free to share them with us.

Chris_D says:

04:32pm | 29/06/11

Again, this is why people don’t want to waste their time on this subject, because there is no “win” for those who don’t support same-sex marriage.  Heteros have nothing to gain.  All I am doing is wasting my time expressing an opinion, but because it does not support what the same-sex marriage brigade is looking for as an outcome, I must be dismissed as not having anything to add to the debate. 

Personally, I don’t care either way, but as I’ve stated repeatedly, it is this attitude that gay and lesbian people have some entitlement to get what hetero people already have that annoys me.  It is this sort of attitude that makes average people say, “yes, it’s inevitable” but they don’t actually agree with it or actually support it.  This doesn’t mean they disagree, but you seem to fail to see the difference. 

If you ask people today if they accept homosexuals the majority will say yes. That doesn’t mean they are pro-homo.  Most of us just don’t really care about it.  It’s not an issue for us, so we don’t usually spend all our time fretting over it, debating it and working out ways to shout down the opposition.  I am happy to let homos be homo, and do their homo thing.  It is when they start rallying and telling heteros that the rules have to change to include them that people get their backs up.

You keep asking if I have an argument against same-sex marriage, but obviously you don’t listen to the answer.

I don’t oppose same-sex marriage.  I oppose the idea that heterosexual marriage laws have to be changed to support homosexual marriage, rather than just having a separate set of laws that define the same-sex rules of their marriage. 

But that’s not what you want to hear, so you’ll probably just make the same tired remarks.

Fred Phillips says:

05:52pm | 29/06/11

“I don’t oppose same-sex marriage.  I oppose the idea that heterosexual marriage laws have to be changed to support homosexual marriage, rather than just having a separate set of laws that define the same-sex rules of their marriage.”

Seeing as it will make no practical difference to you either way, why would you care? And if you don’t care (as you claim), why would you spend so much time arguing about this here today?

Chris_D says:

09:07pm | 29/06/11

@Fred Phillips, I care because it has become a massive drain on National debate, even though it only really matters to a small minority, and it is not allowing Government to focus on bigger issues that are far more important and far reaching.  I have spent so much time on here today simply because my youngest daughter has been sick and I stayed home to look after her.  I certainly wouldn’t have wasted this much time otherwise.  What’s your excuse?

Your name: Fred Phillips says:

10:56pm | 29/06/11

My “excuse”? I actually care about this issue. I don’t like seeing gay people discriminated against for no reason. Amazing, huh?

Rach says:

10:56pm | 29/06/11

@Chris_D - “Heteros have nothing to gain.” But then again, you know that heteros have nothing to lose.  What would heteros lose if others also had the option of marrying their life partner? Tell me.  In the meantime I will support my many gay friends and their long term partners - if they want to have their relationship recognised by society, and that’s what it’s about, let them.  I would love to be at their weddings toasting their ongoing future together.  I think it’s so awful that it’s not an option for these beautiful human beings to be excluded because of people’s fear.  I just can’t imagine what you think will happen to society if there is another married couple out there.

Chris_D says:

07:23am | 30/06/11

@Fred Phillips; it seems that what you care most about is making sure everyone shares your opinion.  If they don’t, they must be wrong, uneducated, misinformed or just bigots.  The other option is they just don’t agree with everything you have to say.

@Rach: you reflect what I have learn’t from spending so much time on here, which is that no matter how many times I say it, pro-gay marriage folks just aren’t listening.  Tell me anywhere in any of my posts where i have mentioned oppostition to it, or fear of it? 

OK Fred and Rach, let me ask you both 1 simple question: Why can’t the same-sex marriage lobby just propose a new set of same-sex marriage laws, that give exactly the same rights, under a different name, and leave the hetero-marriage laws exactly as they are?

BL says:

11:18am | 29/06/11

Yes Lanh, because heterosexuals are doing such a great job of bringing up children. Oh that’s right, every state in Australia is having a welfare crisis atm of children being neglected, abused, shipped off to one foster family after another, children being brought up in meth houses, children being brought up by dope dealing single mums and dads.. and lets not forget the fact the majority of parents these days have no interest in their children’s lives or are letting their 4 year olds sign up to facebook so they can be accousted by pedophiles. But that’s okay Lanh, let’s just sweep all that under the crapet shall we and pretend that heterosexuals are doing such a massively great job of bringing up children.

Oh and Lanh darling, who do you think procreates these evil homosexuals that want the same rights as everyone else? Oh that’s right, it’s heterosexuals.

Bobster says:

11:27am | 29/06/11

Marriage was about property rights and business succession planning.

Buy another book. The Bible is full of shit.

SugarSnap says:

11:48am | 29/06/11

@ Bobster,

Hi Bobster, I’m a Christian but I believe that same sex couples should be able to have the freedom to get married.
Just because you do not believe in the Bible does not mean it is fine to just toss out mean and reckless comments like “The Bible is full of shit” - respecting one another is important, what if I said something offensive and personal to you and your loved ones without caring about your feelings?

Many other cultures and religions are against homosexuality and this wasn’t ‘created’ by the Bible, Jesus or whoever.

In fact, Jesus never condemned homosexuals per se. I believe God doesn’t look at one thing in a person and decide, Oh, you are going to hell/heaven. There are so many other wonderful things about a person which doesn’t make them ‘bad’ just because they are, for example, homosexual.

Many Christians and other religions have this strange misunderstanding of practising their religion. How can you love and respect like Jesus taught when you ‘hate’ someone (i.e. homosexuals).
Its okay to do ‘sins’ like drinking alcohol, lying and adultery but not okay to be ‘gay’?

I have a couple of gay friends and we hang out alot, debate and discuss religion.

People like Landh perhaps just fear the unknown or see it as a threat to some wrongly perceived dominance (meaning maybe it doesn’t matter what we do wrong ourselves as long as we are on top as heterosexuals) so get into the defensive.

Bobster says:

01:19pm | 29/06/11

As a historical document and as far as its views on the origins of marriage are concerned, the Bible is full of shit.

It is less than useless when it comes to informing the historical context of anything other than European politics post-Rome.

As marriage pre-dates Rome and the Bible by several millenia, the Bible has nothing to offer this debate and those that rely on it to reinforce the institution of marriage do so erroneously.

I don’t mean to use that to crap on your beliefs but I take umbrage when Biblical arguments are mounted for anything.

Unfortunately, a Biblical understanding of marriage underpins much of the opposition to gay marriage and I have no doubt it informs Lanh’s view to a large degree

Bobster says:

01:24pm | 29/06/11

P.S Sugarsnap.

The gay marriage “debate” is offensive to members of my family.

The fact that my brother is told by the Australian Government that his relationships are less worthy than mine based on a christian interpretation of marriage is highly offensive, discriminatory and backwards.

Sorry, I meant to include that in my previous post.

I will respect all of those who respect me. Unfortunately, the vocal visible Christians routinely disrespect my family - just as OP has done in the original article in the name of an erroneous understanding of what the institution of marriage has historically meant.

Kiddo says:

01:30pm | 29/06/11

@Sugarsnap

“Many Christians and other religions have this strange misunderstanding of practising their religion. How can you love and respect like Jesus taught when you ‘hate’ someone (i.e. homosexuals).
Its okay to do ‘sins’ like drinking alcohol, lying and adultery but not okay to be ‘gay’?”

Having an opinion on something doesn’t equal hatred. Not condoning something doesn’t equal hatred.  I can have a viewpoint on homosexuality while loving the person, which to me means interacting with them with respect, the way I would interact with any one else.

If you hold the bible to the be the word of god, then homosexuality is a sin, just like lying, jealousy, adultery are sins. You are correct in saying that many christians have a mis-understanding of practising their religion, in that they seem to appear to hold the view that homosexuality is ‘bigger’ than any other sin. 
Again christians are imperfect humans, and there will be some who express their opinion on homosexuality in an unkind, rude or angry way, which is different from expressing an opinion, even if contrary to someone else’s, in love.

SugarSnap says:

10:43am | 30/06/11

Wow, I did not expect such strength of replies.

@ Bobster Reply #1,

I did not really make a comment on the Bible’s take on marriage.
In fact, I didn’t really use anything from the Bible regarding marriage, nor used the Bible to back any particular argument except bringing up the fact that Jesus never condemned homosexuals.

@ Bobster Reply #2,

It’s good to know that you have a gay family member, hence you rise to defend your brother and his sexuality from your perception that *every* Christian is shooting flames at homosexuality.

However, I too have a family member I love and cherish who is homosexual and as with yourself, do not appreciate people judging the person over something so cursory instead of the overall person, who could be the most charitable, nicest, sweetest and probably more ‘devout’ in many ways than many other religious people - without the hatred and venom.

However, to assume all Christians are cookie cutter cut outs without brains to think and consumed by blind religious fervour is erroneous.

I was an atheist before this, before realising that the rejection of any possibility of a divine/omnipotent being in a universe as unknown, diverse and expansive as this, is the same as someone who blindly believes that there is one without using their brain to look past the absolute and the literal.
I became agnostic, not believing but open to it.
Without having to go into too many details I became a Christian by my own conviction, no door knockers, no fluffy church going airheads to convince me to skip to my loo to church, no one but myself who through a series of events (no walking on water or anything, visions, or anything) decided to be Christian.
I have fellow friends who found Christianity by their own conviction as well, and btw we are all professionals with post graduate degrees not illiterate twits from over religious families (I come from a family of liberal thinking Buddhists and Catholics which made me reject Catholism at an early age).

Unfortunately your blind perception of all Christians being offensive passive aggressive fluffs who hate your brother for being who he is, smacks to me of you being similar to those you hate for that very reason.

The debate you despise and feel offensive happens in a world of diverse opinions and beliefs - you will always have debates of everything, from whether a woman can have children after 40, to whether a “gay person” can be “gay” (stemming from ignorance, mostly), to whether refugees should be given permanent residency when they are fleeing a warring state seeking temporary respite, to whether there is a god.
We should seek to open doors to communication and understanding without having to nuclear bomb one another or there will be no understanding, acceptance or even tolerance, any longer!

@ Kiddo,

You are right, having an opinion doesn’t equal hatred.
We can choose to steep ourselves in closed opinions or seek to communicate and share opinions and thoughts.

But if the way we share our opinions and thoughts are overrun and fraught with judgmental scorn or superiority to a very offensive degree (i.e. waving “God hates gays” placards as if gay people will look at it and think, ‘Oh no, God hates gays I’d better stop being gay!’ or people saying ‘F—k God!’ as though religious people are going to think, ‘That makes so much sense!’) there’s no point to it other than to push oppression on others and isolate them!

Yes, Christians are imperfect, who isn’t? But I think we should seek to be more accepting to extending love, tolerance and acceptance to one another, not isolate and harbour venomous thoughts to people, it turns them away from you and makes them resentful, to hate.

In the end (if you are Christian, sorry if I am assuming.) loving and believing in God and accepting Christ and his teachings to love your neighbour (fellow man) is more important than rituals and the fear of punishment of sinning (rather than wanting to do the right thing).
Who has not sinned? Sin is sin, everyone has ‘sinned’. How can they point fingers at gay people when they themselves aren’t perfect? It’s up to God to judge, we merely seek to be the best people we can and help others to the best of our ability, not as Christians, as people.

JB says:

12:02pm | 29/06/11

Bobster, The Koran says the same thing so are you saying the Koran is full of SH!T too? Be very careful of your answer, remember Salman Rushdie, a Fatwa was issued for his blasphemy.

Bobster says:

05:14pm | 29/06/11

Koran’s full of shit.

So’s the Torah.

Shandi75 says:

07:51pm | 29/06/11

Kudos to Bobster!

I think I love you a little bit for all your recent posts!

Likes Joining Dots says:

08:18pm | 29/06/11

No. Thank you Joe. Succinct and accurate comment.

The article has made me look closer at the AFA as an organisation that I had previously been indifferent to (and therefore viewed almost benignly due to the name) and now find deserves greater scrutiny.

JB says:

11:55am | 29/06/11

PG Don’t forget that marriage is a religious sacrament that strictly speaking Non-believers have no right to enter into. Strictly speaking. Under the conditions set down in religion a marriage is between a man and a woman, hey I didn’t write the “Rules” are it were be these are simple facts. Society has rules and if you don’t like them, go about finding a way to change them, but in a democratic way and not play the discrimination card to get attention like a petulant child! What i find offensive is minority groups, and there are plenty of them claiming to have rights because they want them and cry discrimination when things don’t go their way. Simple way to put this whole issue to bed is to have a referendum on this and why were at it on the Carbon tax as well and any other burning social issues, why not give the people the say as to how society develops.

bec says:

02:16pm | 29/06/11

Actually, JB, it is primarily a secular institution. You can have a marriage in a courthouse with no religious involvement and have it binding and a service in a church where no documents are signed and it not being binding.

Sandle says:

12:35pm | 29/06/11

FJ?

Chris_D says:

12:09pm | 29/06/11

Nice one. I’d actually like to hear how Tim would react to that statement.

Pope Benedict says:

03:04pm | 29/06/11

Um, God the Father? Fairly basic Christian doctrine.

James1 says:

04:25pm | 29/06/11

So the number two guy (after god) in Christian thought actually came from a broken home, a home where he was not raised by his biological parents.  Interesting…

bec says:

05:33pm | 29/06/11

My catholic schooling informs me that it was worse than that. Basically, he was born to a teenage mum whose dad pissed off and only returned when the boy was in his thirties to kill him.

Christ. They have ACA reports about shit that’s less saucy than that. The only way that could be more oldschool bogan is if Jesus had a ratty and spent his last night alive at Summernats.

Coach says:

01:08pm | 29/06/11

You 100% agree that nothing should ever change because look what happened the last time Jim Carrey moved the moon?

Shandi75 says:

07:57pm | 29/06/11

You see Drake, I am part of that “institution” and I DO want them - please don’t speak for me. YOU clearly don’t want them for what ever small minded reasons you think are more important that anyone else’s. And here’s a thought - how about you leave the rest of us alone instead?

LeonT says:

01:06pm | 29/06/11

“Hey, we all know that marriage is based on Christian principals (sic)”

Incorrect. Marriage was around long before the time of Jesus, or even the old testament.

“If couples don’t believe in Christian principals why should they get married? “

Because the statement used to justify this one is false, this statement has no meaning.

Chris_D says:

12:41pm | 29/06/11

This is the truth!  And like same-sex marriage, it would have to come under a different category, and accordingly a different name.  “Multi-marriage” springs to mind.

“Hi, my name is Chris, and am I am multi-married to my 7 wives.  Where is the drop down menu for next of kin on this welfare form?”

Elphaba says:

12:54pm | 29/06/11

Very oversimplified.  Have you researched much into polygamy, particularly the fundamentalist Mormon kind?  It’s extremely abusive, not just to women, but also to young men.

It ain’t all ‘Big Love’...

LeonT says:

01:38pm | 29/06/11

In some ways you’re right.

Polygamy was partly outlawed because of consent concerns. In the past, when the wife is completely reliant on the support of her husband, it is quite possible that her consent to the expansion of the marriage was under duress.

Happily, with women’s lib, this is much less the case now. But, as someone mentioned above, other instutuions (e.g. taxation) have formed under an assumption of a maximum two adult family. That is the major impediment to polyamourous marriage.

Austin 3:16 says:

03:43pm | 02/07/11

What you mean like those kings in the bible with hundreds of wives?

That might be taking things a bit too far.

JB says:

12:30pm | 29/06/11

Do you have an opinion or something constructive to offer or are you English and just like to complain?

marley says:

01:02pm | 29/06/11

Craig - here’s the deal with the Punch - it’s supposed to be a conversation.  The article is the starting point, not the finishing point. Quite often, what the author has to say is less interesting than the “to and fro” arguments among the Punchers.  And on more than one occasion the comments have drifted off into different directions entirely.  Almost like real conversations.

Kika says:

01:27pm | 29/06/11

So you want double the amount of divorces too?

marley says:

06:56pm | 29/06/11

@Kika - so you think that allowing gay marriage would double the divorce rate? Hmmm.  Well, if 50% of the population is gay, that could be right.  On the other hand, if only 5 or 10% of the population is gay, and they have the same divorce rates as those heterosexual couples who take the binding, religious contract so seriously, we might get a 2 to 5% increase in divorces.  Big deal.

Darragh Scully says:

09:55pm | 29/06/11

@ Marley I dont think Kika was implying a statistical relationship between divorce rates increasing and polygamy. Ill say that if they were busy fighting each other for half of whats left once they got their minority status bonuses such as most of your shit and your house then I might be able to slip out the back with my wallet, watch and car keys…maybe I watch to much TV, change my name and hope the Familly Tax benefit fuckers dont catch on.

Kika says:

01:11pm | 29/06/11

Maybe not genetic. I would suspect if it was biological it would be down to the chromosomes.

Michael R says:

02:31pm | 29/06/11

A good point and why we also need to ban marriage for people with any type of disability. A friend of mine was born with a cleft palate. Surely he should not be allowed to marry. Not to mention your obvious mental defects. I trust you too are single.

chris says:

09:02pm | 29/06/11

Actually there might be a very good reason for homosexuality, in an evolutionary sense.  It might be beneficial to a species that some people should not be involved in procreation and childrearing.  Not too hard to see why this might be the case.  I speculate, but I am just saying that to view it as a “defect” really is a negative a priori judgment.. do you know the mind of nature? (or of God?)

Kika says:

01:14pm | 29/06/11

The point was about the semantics - the gay lobby wants it for token reasons, so the author has highlighted the original token reasons to demonstrate why gay marriage is incompatible with the traditional reason and view for marriage.

Matt says:

08:04pm | 29/06/11

Kika, you forgot to add he failed… miserably.  Because there is no argument.  And for token reasons?  This suggest to me your ignorance or homophobia.  Either you haven’t looked up the rights associated with marriage vs de facto relationships, or you’re just another dull bigot who doesn’t care for facts or equal rights.

RyaN says:

10:44am | 30/06/11

And of course this is justification to breed more. Sound argument there!

Cade says:

01:35pm | 29/06/11

Canada did it, under the same situation as us.

marley says:

01:39pm | 29/06/11

Oh, bulldust.

1. Marriage in Australia may or may not be judeo-christian in origin (I think the Romans had a not dissimilar concept, by the way) but it is legally a secular matter.  You can go see your priest or imam and get married in a Church or mosque, but it isn’t legal without the state registration of the marriage. You don’t need to remove God from the constitution to remove him from marriage.  He’s already gone.

2.  See argument above.  Since marriage is secular, the role of the monarch as head of one of the churches of her realm is irrelevant.  Or do you consider that Catholic marriages aren’t valid because the Queen in an Anglican?

3.  All the families, gay and straight, that I know regard the men as fathers and the women as mothers - so kids might have a father and mother,  or two fathers, or two mothers.  So what?

4.  If the polygamy lobby wants to make push for recognition of their marital situation, let them have at it.  But one very common definition of marriage involves the use of the term “exclusive relationship”.  That fits same sex marriage but not polygamy.

5.  The definition of what is incestuous varies with countries and societies.  In some, a marriage between first cousins is perfectly acceptable;  in others, it’s incestuous.  And it generally has nothing to do with children, but with property rights.

6.  Gay couples don’t need IVF.  They will require artificial insemination and/or surrogates. Or the right to adopt. Again, so what?

7.  Why should DNA limit one’s right to adopt?  Should infertile couples or those with genetic disorders they don’t want to pass on, be denied the right to adopt?

8.  Courts are a bit more sophisticated than that.  If two adults have publicly accepted the terms of parenthood and are raising a child as their own, the courts will not concern themselves with the biological origins. 

Lots of questions, lots of rather easy answers.  And if you really wonder about these things, why not check out the family law in one of the countries which does allow gay marriages.  It hasn’t resulted in any of the ghastly possibilities you are so concerned about.  For example, the Queen is still the Queen of Canada, God is still in the Constitution, the words “father” and “mother” are not under threat, gays can adopt, and polygamy and incest are still illegal.

Luke says:

04:10pm | 29/06/11

Are you serious? I doesn’t look like you have stepped out of your house in 200 years. Are you a vampire or something? There is world out there and it’s already complex if you haven’t noticed, adding a few questions to replace another few doesn’t make a difference.
Incest? Seriously?
I hope you are not breeding because it’s bad for the gene pool.
Marley said some of it, I dont’ have time for your patheticaly weak arguments.

Bev says:

06:35pm | 29/06/11

marley says:01:39pm | 29/06/11
Courts are a bit more sophisticated than that.  If two adults have publicly accepted the terms of parenthood and are raising a child as their own, the courts will not concern themselves with the biological origins.
However we must look at the otherside of the coin not all relationships are for ever.  Parentage (father) is certainly central to many disputes in the family courts.  If you care to look lesbian seperation it can get extremely messy.  The father where does he come into the picture?  The non birth mother, what are her rights?  Particulary where she has primary care.  Is her rights more important than the birth mother or the fathers? It just goes on for ever.

marley says:

07:53pm | 29/06/11

@Bev - everything you’ve described applies as much to heterosexual as to same-sex divorces.  If you care to look at heterosexual divorces, they too can get extremely messy.  My stepson is in the middle of one right now.  I can’t see how gay breakups could possibly be any worse.  Your argument is nonsense.

Marek says:

02:37pm | 29/06/11

” i have never been married in my life” “Marriage ...Its about love and companionship, and equality between 2 people.”

Since you have never been married perhaps you should refrain on telling others what marriage is about. Or, are you saying you have not found “love, companionship, and equality” and thus you have never married? PS: I assure you your child would benefit from having a good father.

Bobster says:

07:28pm | 29/06/11

We have now added the unmarried to the list of people that can’t get married.

By this definition, only heterosexual married people understand marriage, meaning they are, presumably, the only group equipped to enter into a relationship as sacred as marriage.

Marek says:

01:58pm | 29/06/11

Craig, this is not to argue with your points on how family can be “created” but to point a basic, fundamental requirement of a family: a child. And to my knowledge that does require a mother and father, at least for conception. It does not matter if this is via sex or IVF. There always is a biological mother and father. Same sex couples, no matter how equal in the light of law or society cannot conceive a child. Indeed they can bring one up once it is born. And yes, I acknowledge they may also love it equally to a heterosexual couple, but no matter how you slice it or dice it such family required heterosexual kick-start. No matter how strong their love is, at least one of the partners will never be a biological parent in such family. This may have emotional and legal consequences for the child. As many comments highlighted here without spelling it out is the fact that words “marriage” and “family” are distinctly separate concepts.

Craig says:

05:51pm | 29/06/11

Marek,

Tim brought up the right for people “to marry and found a family” so it is only proper to show that since homosexual couples can found a family, they should also be permitted to marry. Yes, Marriage and Family, could be considered separate, however I doubt that many people could agree with you. I am sure that many couples consider themselves a family, with or without children.

Sadly, it seems that you are rating families by the biological relationship between the parents and the child. Are you stating that if a child is not the biological child of one or more of its parents that it belongs to a lesser family? If that is true, then you are calling all families that have adopted children and families that come together after the death or divorce of their parents lesser families. This includes heterosexual couples too. It is so very sad that you feel that families can be graded in such a way.

Your point could also be is that since homosexual couples cannot conceive children, then any family their may develop is lesser, or worse, invalid. Do you also invalidate the families of heterosexual couples who cannot conceive? How heartless are you?

Of course you may be trying to point out that since homosexual couples cannot conceive children, they therefore cannot develop a family and therefore should not be allowed to marry? Such a statement goes against the very rights that Tim pointed out in his opinion, that we ALL have the right “to marry and found a family”.

KH says:

01:33pm | 29/06/11

We’re homophobe bashing today.  Religious nuts are tomorrow. Come back then….....

Brendo says:

02:53pm | 29/06/11

@ KH

Ha Ha Ha ...funny

James1 says:

03:49pm | 29/06/11

Almost 80% of Christians never get over it and 100% of children from Christian homes have life-long emotional problems (they are often silent about them).

By your evidentiary standards, my statement is just as valid as yours. (Hint: neither presents a valid generalisation.)

Matt says:

08:09pm | 29/06/11

‘God would never have told Adam and Eve to go forth and multiply, given the sixth Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery’ - so, being the first two people, who married them then? The snake?

bec says:

02:18pm | 29/06/11

1000%? That sounds very… truthy…

James says:

02:23pm | 29/06/11

“It’s a fact gay people go through 1000% more partners in their life than a hetero person would”

I am 33, homosexual and never even had a partner. Nor do I go out there shaking my tail at everyone. It’s people like you who are nothing but hateful, ignorant, evil, pathetic excuses for a human being. You are a disgrace to the human race.

And perhaps your so-called ‘concern for children’ should be aimed at the multitudes of children I see work in welfare who have been sexually abused by their parents, beaten and abused by their fathers, children hooked on meth and drugs because of neglect parents. Parents who arent homosexual, but parents who are straight.

bella starkey says:

02:38pm | 29/06/11

1000% ??? When would they have time to work out or choose throw cushions for thier hetero mates or comfort fat chicks with a broken heart or (insert gay stereotype here)????

Brendan says:

02:54pm | 29/06/11

1000% more… damn those gays get all the breaks!

Al says:

03:42pm | 29/06/11

Now let me see, a 1000% more than a non-gay.
I am non-gay and have had no partners (a few girlfriends but nothing that I would call a partner).
So 1000% more than zero is still zero.
True, but still misleading don’t you think!

AJ says:

03:56pm | 29/06/11

1000% more partners?

I’m a complete failure as a gay then. Only four partners and I’ve been in a monogamous relationship with my current partner for over five years. When I get home tonight, I’ll have to dump him so that I can get busy having 1000% more partners than my straight friends (and given the fact that some of them take home randoms every weekend, it seems I will be very, very, very busy indeed).

danny says:

06:07pm | 29/06/11

Oh dear I must be doing something wrong.. As A gay man i have been in the same relationship for the past 12 years and had 1 partner before that… Thank you Kika for clearing this fact..

lex says:

02:53pm | 30/06/11

Love this.  And, in fact, “marriage” was not defined until Mr Howard took it upon himself to do so less than a decade ago.

cur says:

07:30pm | 29/06/11

@ Zaf - damn, i missed that one! all i got was…

gay marriage = moon

fayshier says:

01:52pm | 29/06/11

yep i saw that. the bit he quotes about “solemn and binding” is from s46, and it’s not a definitional inference - it’s an example of wording that a celebrant should use.

Also, the definition of “marriage” is in s5:
“marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.”

I’d like to point out (aside from the obvious man/woman bit), it says feck-all about children - and no matter what other interpretations various institutions and cultural beliefs will add to marriage, we’re in a society ruled by law - separation of church and state…

Servaas says:

01:16am | 30/06/11

The preference is also for adopted children to grow up in the potentially safest environment, under a married couple.

Kristen says:

02:08pm | 29/06/11

No your wrong on one thing, There ARE sufficient numbers just not enough willing to throw their voices to the wind and say im out and proud of who i am because there is still so much discrimination towards the BLGT community.

Drew says:

02:10pm | 29/06/11

I’m grateful homosexuality exists so I know which broken, degenerate attention seeking people to stay away from.

Kika says:

02:19pm | 29/06/11

And you don’t think gay people create children with donor sperm and wombs already?

Ben81 says:

02:33pm | 29/06/11

Yes Drew, it really brings out the bigots and makes them easy to spot doesn’t it.

John says:

02:51pm | 29/06/11

Umm, so who says marriage is not about money, inheritance and child-rearing today?  Been to a divorce court lately?

Pissed off says:

02:23pm | 29/06/11

Your argument would be valid…. IF marriage didn’t PREDATE RELIGION. Marriage was not created by the church. You bigots need to find a new scapegoat. And HOW DARE you decide what God loves or hates? You are human. Not heavenly. DEAL WITH IT.

Stephen says:

02:41pm | 29/06/11

I love how you think you know what God likes or hates…. The clearest message in the Bible is love your fellow man, followed closely by do not judge others. There are also some great passages about not speaking on God’s behalf. I am a gay man who took a long time to accept that I was made by God in his image, as all of creation is. God made me and loves me as much as anyone else, and any loving God must be happy that creatures he created can find love and happiness in this world, as its through love that we worship him. I’m afraid you seem to have chosen certain bits from God’s teachings that suit you, but are choosing to ignore so many others. You need to learn to turn the other cheek and learn to love all of God’s wonderful creation. God is about love, not hate.

kate says:

03:23pm | 29/06/11

Who said anything about god?  What does s/he have to do with it?

If you want a religious ceremony, go right ahead.  It has no legal force, and most people don’t want it, but hey, no-one’s stopping you. 

Call it “religious union” if you want.  “God-sanctified procreation contract”.  Whatever. 

But don’t bring your invisible friend into the argument about the LEGAL definition of a SECULAR contract.

Al says:

03:36pm | 29/06/11

I love the comments along the lines of ‘Marridge pre-dates the church’.

While technicly true I have another question for those people:
Does marriage pre-date religion, the answer is a resounding NO!
There was no ‘marriage’ prior to the creation of religion as there was no need. No supernatural being to appease by going through a ritual. No benefits to be gained by mouthing certain words (such as tax concessions etc).
Marriage may pre-date the ‘church’ (may also depend on your definition of ‘The Church’), but it does NOT pre-date religion.
Case close, marriage is a religous activity and as such has no place being treated differently to those who choose not to buy into it in a secular society (which we are ‘supposed’ to be!)

marley says:

04:20pm | 29/06/11

@Al - so, in your view, religion pre-dates marriage.  Odd. I just read a paper prepared by the United Church of Canada (a major, mainstream Church, by the way) which says that there is no evidence of Christian marriage rites before the 9th century, because marriage at that time was regarded as a civil rather than a religious rite.

Care to rethink your argument?

AKoiLus says:

02:20am | 30/06/11

I think you lot need to get around to finally reading a Bible. Which states choose one wife if you must then bind in matrimony. So what’s with the ‘Marriage was not created by the church” rant?  Plus the whole Book of John is about sexual standards geez. Jesus will love you yes, but if you continue to ignore teaching your considered a sinner and thus unworthy. I presented a commentary. It is God who judges my friend.

AKoiLus says:

02:33am | 30/06/11

BTW Kate do some homework. The invisible friend has everything to do with it. That’s why people like you fail to win your argument. You won’t entertain the facts! Whether god exists or not isn’t the issue. Marriage is instituted in both the Church and the Law, Now go back to sleep.

marley says:

07:18am | 30/06/11

@Akoilus - marriage existed before the 9th century, but it wasn’t a religious rite.  It was a civil matter.  Religous people entered into civil marriages.  A bit like your taking out a car loan.  Nothing to do with the Church, back then.  That’s what it’s about.

Em says:

01:10pm | 30/06/11

@AKoiLus - um, luv, I think you need to be reminded that civilisation has been around for several thousands of years before a bunch of guys wrote a book of stories. 

And it’s time you (and people like you) looked past the marriage being tied to religion thing.

Separate the two concepts.  Marriage, as a word, is the union of two or more parts.  Somewhere along the line, religion was brought into it to give it more meaning and make it special because it was the socially acceptable thing to do within whatever specific culture to which it applied. (And cue all the ridiculous comments about marriage and incest and marrying animals, etc, etc, etc. *sigh*)

Religion was created because mankind has free thought and the idea of the great unknown after death scares the beejeebus out of us.

AKeeFa says:

03:03pm | 30/06/11

@AKoiLus.  You can’t possibly really believe that all gays are god-haters and that god hates all gays?  That’s the crazy talk of a truly intolerant person. 
It all comes down to equality.  If you were gay (which I suspect you probably are, firmly planted in the denial closet), you would want the same rights as any heterosexual person, wouldn’t you?
House-poof!

Danny B says:

02:42pm | 29/06/11

This raises another question - what’s to prevent the more conservative side of politics from revoking whatever legislation legalises same-sex marriage once they get into power?

Ben81 says:

06:03pm | 29/06/11

I don’t know Danny, i’d like to think they’d at least be able to save face saying they opposed it in the first place and just put up with things.
It should be a conscience vote in my opinion.

darragh scully says:

11:38pm | 29/06/11

Didnt someone marry a cat earlier this year, it was like Televised!

James1 says:

04:05pm | 29/06/11

What a dysfunctional family they must have been.  Yet further proof that kids should always be raised by both of their biological parents.  If they aren’t, they grow up and get themselves executed.

Bev says:

07:06pm | 29/06/11

Will changing the law help? Children are cruel to each other despite any law for all sorts of reasons. Do you really expect a few words will cause that to change?  The fact you are doing it now doesn’t make it right.  Human history is littered with “it seemed to be right at the time” except in retrospect it wasn’t.  Blaming others for your decisions is not on.  You knew what you and your children would face. I don’t see anywhere you mention the children’s father so I presume you consider him out of sight out of mind?

Janey says:

09:47am | 30/06/11

I absolutely love your logic.
YOU are doing what YOU want to do anyway by having children in a gay relationship.  No problem with that at all with me.
However, it sounds like YOU are stomping YOUR little foot.
Wanting the law changed so the children YOU have had are not harmed.
Why didn’t you think of that before having children Kate?
And really, who cares that YOU would never choose to be straight?
I mean, who really cares?  For what it is worth, I would never choose to bring up children in a homosexual relationship.  Who cares?
YOU pretend to be concerned about YOUR children but only if everyone does what YOU want.
Pathetic.

marley says:

03:50pm | 29/06/11

You don’t need a valid bit of paper to prove the validity of the relationship.  But if you want that piece of paper, why should you be denied it?

As for marriage having been a patriarchial, oppressive institution, well, yes, it was.  That doesn’t mean it still is.  And it was for heterosexuals, but that doesn’t mean it still has to be.  Societies change, institutions change, and marriage is something that should be as amenable to change as the laws on slavery and on the right to vote.

Jem says:

04:21pm | 29/06/11

Personally I think the best idea is to remove ‘marriage’ as the legally binding thing that counts for tax etc.

If the Marriage Act became a Civil Union Act open to any couple, irrespective of gender, and that was the defining thing for legal, tax purposes - everything that marriage counts for right now that being de facto etc won’t give you.

Marriage ceases to be anything other than a religious service that people may elect to have.  It woudl be non binding in a legal sense unless there was also a civil union conducted as well. 

I didn’t get married in a church.  We were married by a celebrant under a palm tree by the beach.  I’m fine with marriage being the province of the churchs if the legal nature of the Marriage Act was revoked and replaced with something available to everyone.  I think that would resolve the majority of issues.

Another Aussie man says:

08:27pm | 29/06/11

Well said Aussie man.

You claim “gay couples cannot procreate, naturally, plain and simple” and this is the basis of denying them marriage. Infertility prevents procreation, but being gay doesn’t. I know many gay people who have procreated, naturally, plainly and simply.

You say that “Gays do in fact have rights under the defacto relationship laws”. I agree and acknowledge that straights have those same rights. But gays do not have the right to marry while straights do. This is discrimination based on sexual orientation. How about we remove that discrimination? Or do you believe that sexual discrimination is acceptable?

I am glad to hear that you are not homophobic and I understand that you are getting sick of this issue being shoved in your family’s face so often. And as you say it really is not up there and that important as an issue. So how about we make a deal and go ahead and allow gays the right to marry? That will get it out of your family’s face for once and for all time and as it is not really important it will have no impact on you or your family. Then we can move onto the more important things!

Janey says:

11:02am | 30/06/11

I think your logic fails Bob.
Procreation has absolutely nothing to do with marriage.
Guess what, Bob, in some heterosexual marriages, such as mine - we do procreate.
So yes, marriage actually does have something to do with procreating for some of us.

Your name:josh says:

04:09pm | 29/06/11

Actually, you might want to do liberal and progressive Christians (not to mention gay Christians) a favour and not lump them in with the opposition.  Next time, say conservative christians or ACL.

Septimus says:

04:10pm | 29/06/11

Oh well then, let’s close of the discussion then, now that you have declared the result is satisfactory to you.

Ali K says:

09:27am | 30/06/11

Progressive Christians from my understanding are christians that dont read the bible.

I will admit Im no theologian but to read that homosexuality is acceptable to God means you are cutting large chunks of the Bible out or simple not reading the book. Which is fair enough if you want to justify a life style. But I guess if we live in a open and democratic country you can read any book any way you want.

To ammend the score

gays and non bible beliving christians 4 - conservative or ACL christians 1

Lostie says:

10:05am | 30/06/11

Ali K,

It depends on your reading of the bible. The most vehement prohibitions against homosexuality are in Leviticus.

Some Christians read the new testament as a replacement for the old testament. They distinguish between the jealous and vengeful god of the old testament and the more forgiving, compassionate God of the new testament.

Keep in mind that the new testament is not the word of god but the word of Jesus (and others) reporting on God’s new world order. Given the Christianity relates to the belief that Jesus was the son of God, the degree to which one adopts the old testament is irrelevant to whether they are “Christian”.

The common thread of the new testament is that fornication is what defiles a person, not only the deed but the thought (see Matthew 15:18).  There is a reference in both Matthew and Mark to God having made both men and women, and that they should be joined. However, in my reading (in context) it seems to be saying that a time comes when a child must move out of their fathers home and marry, however Corinthians advocates remaining unwed and chaste.

All Christians ignore parts of their holy text - they must for the thing is not internally consistent, but they also ignore parts such as the following:

“For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil. For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man.” 1 Corinthians 11:6-7.

(No, I am not Christian, but I have read and, in a small way, studied the bible).

Summary:

Homosexuals will be denied access to heaven under the new testament. However, there is nothing that prohibits gay marriage. Further, the new testament is more “permissive” in the live and let live sense than the old “stone them to death” testament.

The question for the individual is whether the new testament is in addition to or is an alteration to the old testament.

Ali K says:

11:05am | 30/06/11

Lostie,

Good point I would suggest that you are right there isnt anything preventing gays to marry. But it would seems that the act would be a sin. So the score is

gays who marry but have sex 4 - gays who can marry but not do sexual acts, conserative christians and ACL 1

And I thought that Jesus claimed he was God?  But you learn something every day.

Lostie says:

09:38am | 01/07/11

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

The other gospel’ have similar messages - I believe that Mathew provides that Angels proclaimed to all “this” is the Son of god at his baptism. John perpetuates the belief that all knew he was the Son of God. While Luke and Mark provide a more personal “you are my son” (There is no indication that any other person saw these angels, other than in John, where he claims “‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit’. And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.”).

Significantly, they show that God and Jesus are not the same.

Depending on which Gospel you believe everyone knows he is the son of god (i.e Matthew), people suspect that he is the son of god (Luke/Mark), or Jesus knows and is a little more circumspect (John).

Thus Endeth the sermon.

I think I missed a career as a historical theologian.

Chris says:

04:01pm | 29/06/11

Well spoken Sir.

P. Darvio says:

04:09pm | 29/06/11

Your Bible, written by goat herders, who lived in tents, 3000 years ago,  says gays must be put to death…......you don’t need your GOD to do your dirty work for you now do you.

James1 says:

04:14pm | 29/06/11

Indeed.  Very funny stuff.

P. Darvio says:

04:18pm | 29/06/11

You wish for “Judgement Day”...you mean the genocidal slaughter of Billions of innocent humans, including pregnant women and innocent children and the destruction of the Planet (Yes I have read your terrorist manifesto called the “Book of Revelations” as well) - yep Religion and terror go hand in hand - just another example of the Christian Taliban on The Punch. You need help - or maybe just go join the Lord Resistance Army.

chris says:

05:19pm | 29/06/11

@P. Darvio Mate, I think the irony was lost on you, big time.  Luke’s post was meant as a joke.  He is sending up the fundies.

Moreover, the bible was not written by goatherders 3000 years ago….are you serious!?

AK says:

02:49am | 30/06/11

lol @ you and the people who think your serious. mawahahahah!

Markus says:

04:34pm | 29/06/11

But then you are denying the same rights to polygamous and incestuous couples that you are currently advocating for homosexual couples.
After all, they are in a loving and consenting relationship too, who are you to deny them this basic human right?

bec says:

05:39pm | 29/06/11

Because… nobody *wants* to legalise incestuous or polygamous marriage? Nobody. Seriously. The reason we discuss gay marriage is because the demographic groundswell is so clearly in favour of it.

nb 1: Some incestuous relationships (namely, cousins and aunts/uncles/nephews/nieces) are not legally prevented from marrying in Australia.

While there are certainly grounds to prevent parent/child relationships from ever being recognised with legal marriage (this would require decriminalising such relationships and FTLOG, why would you bother when this would genuinely legitimise and facilitate child abuse), why bother stopping brothers and sisters if they have no intent to have children and can legally prove that they’re sterile? There’s little in the way of power imbalance, and though definitely not my cup of tea, there are arguments to be made about the bother that’s required.

nb 2: I’ve discussed elsewhere why legalising polygamy would be a total nightmare ethically, legislatively and practically in a way that gay marriage would not be. Suffice to say that gaining consent between two people on matters is often difficult enough, but trying to gain consent and consensus between three or more?

Markus says:

07:48pm | 29/06/11

“The reason we discuss gay marriage is because the demographic groundswell is so clearly in favour of it.”
Did you miss the whole ‘momentum rhetoric’ part of the article? Or just choosing to ignore it because it doesn’t suit your argument.
Thinking it is inevitable =/= support.

“nb 2: I’ve discussed elsewhere why legalising polygamy would be a total nightmare ethically, legislatively and practically in a way that gay marriage would not be.”
From what I’ve seen, your argument is the same as those in opposition to legalising gay marriage. In some cases almost word for word.
The only thing that makes it different is you thinking it is.

marley says:

07:42pm | 29/06/11

Umm, well, first, rather a lot of marriages here do not take place in a church.  We have this thing called civil marriage. 

And secondly, gays can get married in churches in some countries.  The churches there don’t have a problem.  So why do you?

marley says:

06:45pm | 29/06/11

Sorry, but I’ve personally never equated marriage with mathematics, so what the hell does Euclid have to do with this?  And societies as recently as 100 years ago didn’t allow women to vote.  Is that a reason to continue that particular way of doing things?  I hope not.  Times change, society changes, and that is the only reality.

Zakalwe says:

05:01pm | 29/06/11

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

Chris_D says:

05:27pm | 29/06/11

You know, that is actually the best solution out of all the ideas on here.  I don’t see any point in trying to destroy marriage, but if any one can do it bigger and better, it’d be the G&L community!

I think this could actually DECREASE divorce rates, as it became a competition to see which side could get the best stats each year.

Good work Zakalwe.  Finally a positive outlook with a win/win soloution!

JC says:

05:34pm | 29/06/11

“Most Gays do not get married anyway”

Lies and damned statistics…

AJ says:

09:13am | 30/06/11

I think he may have skipped watching “I Love You Phillip Morris” in which Jim Carrey was “teh g@y” with Ewan McGregor.

Of course, if he had watched that film, then no doubt the article would have also noted that all gays and lesbians are criminals and belong locked up (in individual cells so that they cannot indulge in any carnal activities with each other) in a big gaol somewhere far, far, far away like America or the Moon.

Doc says:

09:31pm | 29/06/11

Since you ask, I am a scientist, and I don’t make any money from IVF, but I can say that my professional opinion is that IVF does not weaken the genetics of our species. This fact is well established within the scientific and medical communities, and is supported by a vast number of peer reviewed journal articles.

The same cannot be said of the evidence you present, which alternates between anecdotal and outright false, and is not supported by scientific literature.

An Actual Doctor says:

11:28am | 30/06/11

@Doc - you must be overlooking the fact that recent longitudinal research revealed IVF babies are more than twice as likely to have birth defects? How about the findings that discovered that the DNA of babies conceived through IVF differs from that of naturally conceived children, putting them at greater risk of diseases such as diabetes and obesity later in life…. It’s related to gene expression. For unexplained reasons they also have much lower birth weights.

There is actually MUCH debate in the scientific community about the long term effects of such procedures. Here is one such article encouraging further discussion http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/5/1133.full and an article in Nature http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v14/n11/full/nm1108-1171.html

You should also take a look at things like long term artificial selection research and the loss of genetic diversity in managed populations. Animal husbandry actually has the bulk of research in this field, not Human reproductive medicine.

The fact is the long term affects of IVF are not yet known an there is little research being done due to a general lack of funding. Unfortunately, medicine too, like other industries, is often governed by the need for profitability. Moreso now than ever.

Genetic diversity is a genuine concern, but realistically IVF is such a small part of the overall population that it is not a real risk. Many scientists contend that advances in science will allow us to remove any potential risks in a loss of genetic diversity as artificial reproduction increases in popularity, and if we are able to control the entire genome, then diversity through reproduction is not necessary. But we are not there yet… Current IVF children do appear to have some risk of increased health problems.

Doc says:

03:20pm | 30/06/11

@An Actual Doctor - I’m not denying the evidence you present, but I need to point out that your argument is regarding a separate issue. Your last paragraph sums up my own position on the issue brought up in Jasmine’s post. My point was merely that relative population sizes would render any effect, be it positive or negative, to be negligible.

marley says:

07:35pm | 29/06/11

Sorry, but you just don’t get it. Legally, that is the current definition of marriage.  The whole point is to change that definition. And since marriage in this country is a secular and not a religious or “sacred” institution, it is not immutable.  Heck, even the religious definition isn’t immutable, since there are churches that will marry gay couples.  That isn’t to denigrate your relationship with our wife, it is to say that other couples ought to be able to share that sense of union.

Get it! says:

06:07pm | 29/06/11

So Dale you have no traditions in your family, from what you say you don’t celebrate anything, ,not Anzac Day, Australia Day or any other day , say your birthday. Well sounds like Dale`s a dull boy and so is his family. As a married hetero let me explain marriage is a a hetero rite, the union of man and woman , celebrated with family and friends . We`ll keep our stone age rites and you and gays can stay out of hetero marriage business, marriage is ours to stay.

bec says:

07:14pm | 29/06/11

Get It, if the only means you have of enjoying yourself and deriving identity is from shitty time-worn scripts, then you don’t have much going for you as an individual.

Ben81 says:

07:18pm | 29/06/11

Well there you have it Dale, apparently what people opposing gay marriage get from their position is the ability to continue gloating about gay people not being able to get married.

Tosser says:

09:20pm | 29/06/11

Your right Dale, staying out of other people’s business in this instance means the homosexuals should stay out of the heterosexuals marriage family business.

Paul says:

08:02pm | 29/06/11

And she was a wholesome Christian who starred in a home porno, so sorry Wayne, your high moral ground just collapsed

marley says:

07:28pm | 29/06/11

Well, I’m not gay, I’m not an activist, and I would indeed dismiss this as homophobia.

Matt says:

08:25pm | 29/06/11

Yes, and in Tim’s case it’s because a book told him to.

marley says:

07:26pm | 29/06/11

Umm. You do know that there are religious establishments that recognize gay marriage, don’t you?  Quite well established religious establishments as well.

Tedd says:

07:25pm | 29/06/11

“.. permanent union ...”

So, No divorce then?

Paul says:

07:07pm | 29/06/11

I love the PS, which proves your hatred and bigotry.  If your argument is true, why did my married parents have one gay son and two straight ones?  Craig, the only selfishness is yours.  Also, as a doctor, I have seen plenty of abused children from married parents, so your argument is a heap of shit

Ben81 says:

07:09pm | 29/06/11

Behold, the lengths people will stretch to attempting to justify their hatred and desire to deny gay people the same rights as straight people.

You just couldn’t help but show your true colours at the end there could you.