Government out of step with people on gay marriage

HappyCynic says:

10:21am | 08/06/11

I agree, get out to the marginal seats and show those opposed to gay marriage just how illogical their position is, preaching to the converted or to the supporters won’t work to change anything.  No religion will ever (or should ever) be forced to accept and/or perform gay marriages, there’s no other logical reason to deny gays the same rights to marry the person they love.

You’ve got to get all but the most delusional and hate-filled on your side or at least comfortable that they aren’t affected in anyway so that they’re too complacent to bother opposing it.  Whether that means making a few technical but not fundamental concessions like accepting the term civil union so long as all other rights were equal or ensuring the law is carefully worded to negate the fallacious “slippery slope” argument, it doesn’t matter.  The 75% figure mentioned above is probably right and could easily get another 10 points or more if people actually started negating the last few silly arguments and started getting the marginal seats on board.

Snake says:

11:32am | 08/06/11

Here is where the Rainbow Alliance falls apart…

“But we can not provide our sons or daughters with equal rights. Only the government can do this.”

Wrong. Your gay son can still marry a woman he loves and your gay daughter can still marry a man she loves. The Marriage Act describes marriage as between a man and a woman, they can take it up on those restrictions but if they want something else, the government made these civil unions they can have. Still not satisfied? Then I guess there’s no pleasing you…

Marriage is, first and foremost a religious ceremony. Just because it has since become mainstream and everyone is doing it with a civil celebrant, it does not change it’s origins. Why a gay person would want to take part in a ceremony effectively created by a group that detests them is beyond me. Take your civil union, take the rights that are in essence EQUAL to married couples and live a long childless life together.

Interesting note though, you brush off the opinion of “minority religious groups” but you seem to weight the opinion of the homosexual community quite high. You forget that the homosexuals are a minority too. Hypocrisy runs deep.

Erin says:

12:20pm | 08/06/11

@Snake
If you’re so concerned about marriage as a religious institution then you should support it’s removal from our civil laws. The Marriage Act does not say “a union between a Christian man and a Christian woman”. would you like it to? The principle of separation of church and state should inform any legislative decisions whether it is codified in our laws or not.

Vince says:

01:12pm | 08/06/11

But, hang on, isn’t Snake correct? I honestly cannot see how anyone has been “discriminated” against if they tie the knot via a civil union or are married.  Can someone explain to me the real differences?  Or is it purely symbolic?  If so, it is not “discrimination” in my view.

Snake says:

01:55pm | 08/06/11

@Erin: No the marriage act says man and woman and does not discriminate against religion. It sounds like you want it to.

Also, I said it has religious origins, not that you have to be religious to get married. I question the ideology of the rainbow alliance that just wants to do what straight people do for the sake of doing it. I am in support of civil unions having the same rights as married couples but leave the word alone. Do not attach your lifestyle to that of other heterosexual couples.

While I am concerned about the influence of the religious institutions, this argument from the rainbow alliance is purely squabbling about semantics. If there were in fact any rights that gay couples did NOT have, we surely would have heard about them.

Tubesteak says:

03:58pm | 08/06/11

The Marriage Act does define marriage as ““marriage” means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.”

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma196185/s5.html

As for why omosexuals want to be able to marry I’m sure PFLAG have a website dedicated to this but I’m not looking at that at work.

taylor says:

04:28pm | 08/06/11

@snake

if you do your research you will actually find that marriage predates recorded history and religion. The first recorded marriages were amongst the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. It was only after this time that marriage became a religious institution. In fact you could argue that religion hijacked the sacrosanct idea of marriage, but then that opens up a whole new argument.

Rob Andrews says:

07:08pm | 08/06/11

@ Snake

Also, if we must respect the origins of even religious marriage, we must bring back polygamy and strip away women’s rights as decreed by the Old Testament. Besides, the law says I’m married and we had no religious involvement. And why do children even come into it? Are you saying a couple who is unable to conceive are not legally married? Or what about the couple that simply chooses not to have kids? Your argument boils down to this: you don’t like gays and so you would feel better if gays weren’t given the same rights as you.

Rob Andrews says:

07:11pm | 08/06/11

@ Vince: Discrimination means denying someone something that everyone else is entitled to. So no, Snake is not at all correct. Snake’s argument is the same as telling blacks in the 1920’s that they should be happy with segregation because hey, at least you’re on the bus and going to school right? It’s demeaning and hypocritical. Imagine, instead of gays, that treatment was doled out to Catholics based on their religious beliefs.

Semantics are King says:

12:14am | 09/06/11

Semantics is all about making discriminations, and people ought to accept that refined discrimination is a good thing. The more intricate and complex our semantic discrimination, the wider the range of concepts we are able to express in a single word. Thus when a person says “actress”, we immediately know that they are referring to an actor who is female, to the exclusion of male actors.

This is not a level of communication that our language could support if we were to use the one word (‘actor’) to describe both male and female actors. Discrimination makes articulation easier. Of course, some argue that this convenience can be used to express vituperation, but I argue that this is not a problem with the language, rather a problem with the society. After all, barring a pre-existing misogynistic temperament, there is no reason that anybody should feel that the feminine implication of the word “actress” somehow makes it inferior to the word “actor”. So, again, the problem is not with the word, it is with the perspective.

And so we come to discussion of gay unions. Our constitution does not formally recognise such a union as a marriage, but so long as the same rights and procedures are granted to gay civil unions, there is no breach of human rights. Having said that, it does seem unreasonable to ask somebody to phrase their proposal “will you civil union me?”. A simple solution would be to invent an entirely new word to describe the concept that reflects a similar romantic tradition to heterosexual marriages, but obviously with the implication of a gay relationship. It should be emphasised that the discrimination of this implication is linguistic; any attached attitudes are a function of society, and not of language.

So with that in mind, and bearing into consideration that the semantics of a “marriage” imply a heterosexual civil union, I suggest we define gay civil unions, then, as “marrieages”. The verb could then be “to marrie”, and the adjective “marriede”. In so doing, we respect the semantic sanctity of the word “marriage”, and we remove the need for the ridiculous “civil union” terminology.

(... or you, know, we could just let gays have “marriages”? Most dictionaries already do.)

Vince says:

11:47am | 09/06/11

@Rob Andrews, “Discrimination means denying someone something that everyone else is entitled to.” 

Everyone can either marry a person of the opposite sex or enter into a civil union with a person of the same sex.  So, no discrimination.

As for your comparision to blacks living segrated lives to whites, segregation was obviously detrimental to blacks, it was part of a system of oppression, and was obviously discrimatory. 

But how is not being allowed to “marry” someone of same sex but instead have an equally legal civil union, in concrete terms, in any way equally detrimental?  Gays can vote, run for office, sit at the front of the bus, get paid the same, join the same clubs, attend the same schools etc. etc.  In every way they are equal citizens in this country and are not discriminated against (or if they are they have a powerful right to address said discrimination).  So comparing Gays to blacks in America is absurd, emotive and distracts from the real issue at hand. 

No.  You say it is discrimination because “it is” but i’m sorry I don’t buy that.  I have yet to hear a concrete description as to why it is, so remain unconvinced.

Elphaba says:

09:15am | 08/06/11

You’re right.  With so much negativity towards the Gillard government, she could gain some serious ground with it.

Interesting…. I’d like to see her run with it AND the carbon tax.  I think the results would be much narrower.

hugh says:

09:51am | 08/06/11

She will run with it - but when you play poker, you don’t show your hand until the timing is right… and the timing is about 3 months before an election is called. Its the perfect issue for Labor to wedge the Liberals on.
The inner city, small l-liberals will look for some leadership and want it to go ahead. The ‘howard battlers’ will pull in the opposite direction. Trying to appease everyone, the Liberals will get smashed.

Enough time to give the electorate multiple sound bytes from the leader of the opposition to smash him / her at the election, and not too far from polling date that the electorate will forget what you’ve done.

Blind Freddy says:

09:52am | 08/06/11

That may have helped her if it had been her idea, and she believed in it . However, given her position to-date to change it would merely provide the proof that she is manufacturing a position based on perceived electoral advantage.

And no-one other than those directly affected, or dead against, would change their vote because of the pro-gay marriage issue- which could be a net loss anyway.

majority says:

09:54am | 08/06/11

yes, awesome idea, Gillard should promote gay marriage.
This would cause the remaining working class labour voters to leave and labor would be left with the latte sipping inner city types who haven’t gone to the Greens.
This would be the final nail in Labor’s coffin and complete Gillards destruction of the Labor party. Awesome idea.

Tim says:

09:58am | 08/06/11

There’s a problem with that and it’s the fact that there aren’t that many people who support this issue passionately or would change their vote because of it. It’s a non issue for most people.
There are however a fairly significant proportion of people who are ardently opposed to it. These people would change their vote because of it. A lot of these people are in marginal seats.

Any attempt to use this issue as a vote winner would fail miserably.

Matt says:

10:03am | 08/06/11

Mahhrat your understanding of the priorities of the Australian public is grossly wrong. If you look at how high it rates into peoples importance regarding voting intentions ie polls which measure ‘most important issue to voters’ the economy, health care education etc etc rate very highly gay marriage barely polls. If Labor changed its policy to support gay marriage, they may steal some first preference votes of the greens (which they ultimately get back in preferences, and are higher in safe inner city seats), but they will lose some conservative working class Labor voters to the Coaltion (which they will not get back and are higher in marginal seats).

CJ Morgan says:

10:58am | 08/06/11

I agree with Mahrat, and also with hugh.  Given this government’s practice of chasing focus groups and polls, I’ve been wondering why they don’t take this golden opportunity to score some brownie points with the electorate on the gay marriage issue.  My only conclusion can be that it’s strategic, as hugh says, an ace in the hand only to be brought out just prior to the next election.

If that’s the case, then all well and good, that’s the game.  However, I dearly hope there are a few more aces up the ALP’s sleeve…

Markus says:

11:31am | 08/06/11

If there was any political benefit to supporting this push, Gillard would have taken it and run with it.

The Galaxy polls are rubbish, and the Labor party know this full well (since when does agreeing it is inevitable equate to support?).
They have more to lose from this than to gain.

Tubesteak says:

11:52am | 08/06/11

No Mahhrat. It’s not an election winner.

It’s a vote-winner in certain seats where us so-called “latte-sippers” exist. But our seats aren’t exactly marginal. We’re either Labor (eg seat of Sydney held by Tanya Plibersek) or Liberal (eg seat of Wentworth held by Malcolm Turnbull). There is no way a pro-gay marriage stance will sway the vote in these seats.

Where it will hurt is in the marginal electorates of places like the western suburbs. There was polling done around the time this issue was last considered and it showed that us inner-city people were in favour of it. But the people in the west were against it.

A politician will choose what policies suit them to win the vote. As I said above, it’s up to PFLAG to win over the people in the west and then take it to government.

Against the Man says:

01:30pm | 08/06/11

I don’t know it this got posted but sorry if it happens twice.

Gilltard has gone on record saying she is against gay marriage and is not of her values. So a back down now would be another lie on her liar,liar list?

But interesting people acknowledge there is so much negativity against Gilltard , but why? One would think that someone who is going to backstab her boss for the top job would have an arsenal of killer policies to implement effortlessly to gain some level of credibility and justify her actions. Unless of course…......

Jack Thomas says:

02:27pm | 08/06/11

What if Abbott chooses neither and let’s the people decide?

A neutral stance would make Julia look the L plater she is.

What is actually funny is the Leftards chasing “wedge” politics as their only option when they whined about Howard doing it.

I am not sure I would be happy having this as an election issue, when we have more important things to worry about. I dunno, things like homelessness, mental health, an NBN, a carbon tax, the majority’s standard of living, etc.

Still, wouldn’t be the first time a minority seeking selfish gains can override the important things.

Robert says:

02:44pm | 08/06/11

Unfortunately what should be a human rights issue that should have partisan support has been high jacked and made into a political issue by the very vocal and powerful religious right.

So for 80% of voters it is not an issue and the people for gay marriage are drowned out by the people that oppose it. The result is not mainstream political party will back it. By opposing gay marriage Gillard is keeping the Religious right on side. She simply shows her hypocrisy by saying she believes in traditional marriage yet is quiet happy to shack up with her handbag.

Rob Andrews says:

07:03pm | 08/06/11

No way. Gillard is dead set afraid of the religious nut minority. She traded a greater and more intrusive chaplaincy program in schools for the Catholic vote. She’s not going to lose that now.

James1 says:

09:26am | 08/06/11

As a married man, drinking coffee on the couch while not at work due to a bad chest and throat infection while his wife cleans the bathroom before going to do the shopping (have to ask her to make me another coffee soon…), I could not disagree with the problem you have identified more (in my particular case).  While I’m sure it is the reality for a few, it just doesn’t ring true in most cases of married couples I have seen.

That said, your solution to an exaggerated problem is very interesting, and warrants serious consideration.  It seems to me that such a proposal is the solution to many other problems/arguments as well as the perceived ones you outline.

Rose says:

09:32am | 08/06/11

Quite possibly the biggest load of rubbish ever written. If you believe even one sentence of that I pity you, it proves you are incapable of a real adult relationship. To look at something so negatively, and in such black and white terms shows that you are also walking around with blinkers on, I know dozens of people, myself and my husband included, who have had successful marriages that have lasted for many years.
I’m going to assume you are bitter because of personal experience, if that is the case, try looking at your experience without the blinkers, whatever went wrong I’m sure was partly your own fault, it takes two to tango!!

Molko says:

09:33am | 08/06/11

At least the Government is only out of step with popular opinion, you are completely out of step with reality.

Brendan says:

09:36am | 08/06/11

Much anger in you…did the nasty women of the world hurt you? Do you need a hug?

I’d probably agree with you if I didn’t have a cute wife with a career…but that’s just me.

Suzanne says:

09:50am | 08/06/11

Wow…aren’t you a sad, bitter person.

While I’m very sorry that you have obviously had a rough time when it comes to women and marriage I take great offence at your sweeping generalisations of women and marriage.
Guess what…it’s not the 1920s anymore, we don’t live in Saudi Arabia and women today generally have their own money, or in my case, are the breadwinners in the family. I’m not obligated to “comply’ with my husbands wishes, just as he is not obligated to comply with mineI am his wife, not his servant.
The majority of women don’t actively seek out men to look after them or aim to take their money. I pity you greatly if this has been your experience and if it has, perhaps you should look to meet women outside of your usual haunts.
Assuming you haven’t already decided to commit yourself to a lonely life of batchelorhood, that is.

bev says:

10:08am | 08/06/11

I would have to say the smugness of the replies is the same as young men hooning around in cars and being accidents going somewhere to happen.  “it wont happen to me” .  There is a 50% chance that it will. Women initiate divorce in 60% of childless marriages and 80% in marriages with chiildren. Most men never see it coming and go into total shock when it does. Some marrages end with amicable settlements and child arrangments but an aweful lot don’t.  So don’t be too smug fellas.  Increasing numbers of young men are getting the message, don’t marriage is a very risky business.  The female lament “men won’t commit these days” ring any bells?

Carz says:

10:32am | 08/06/11

What a load of crap. The sad thing is you probably believe it. Believe me, the reality is much different, however as this is about gay marriage I won’t bother picking your assessment of what marriage is to women and men to shreds.

I do agree with your solution but with one minor point: that civil unions not be allowed between “any two people” but between consenting adults who must undertake courses on healthy and respectful relationships.

Tchom says:

10:37am | 08/06/11

-the right have COOTIES!

Seriously dude. Find a blank wall and see if anything shows up on it, because I don’t think you could be projecting any harder. Its a real pity about the first part of your comment, because your suggested solution actually makes a lot of sense

Brendan says:

10:56am | 08/06/11

Now Nick, its no good changing your name and calling yourself “Bev”.  Putting your hand in a sock puppet doesn’t count as having a person agree with you

Bobster says:

11:09am | 08/06/11

Someone give Nick a hug, please.

Erick, console your brother in arms.

Lapun says:

11:12am | 08/06/11

Wow!  You must have had a bad one but although you are obviously a trifle, just a trifle, biased on the male side, I do very much agree with your 3 items of solution statede at the end of the diatribe.

Geoff - Brisbane says:

11:17am | 08/06/11

And look at all the females who deny the problem. Dispite what countless men say you just brush it off as “bitter men”.

You are the problem Rose, You are the problem Suzanne. Women like you two are the reason erick and nick post. You two don’t give a single damn about men, and the evidence is in your posts. You do not listen to what nick says and just brush it off as “females can do no wrong, nick has problems”

Nick says:

11:25am | 08/06/11

Lol. Nothing other than anything i’ve come to expect from the army of lefty loons that think they are different to anybody else.

Nobody who replied to me actually addressed any of my points. The most intelligent reply you lefties have given me is ‘I acknowledge your argument but i can’t be bothered rebutting it’.

All you do is resort to ad hominems and strawman arguments to try and influence a reader’s opinion of my point. I laughed when all of you agreed with my overall conclusion despite disagreeing with the means that i used to fulfill it.

Also, thank you Lev. Brendan, one day you will learn that there are a plethora of people with different opinions in this world, and just because two of them disagree with the general lefty consensus does not mean they are the same person.

Bev says:

11:26am | 08/06/11

Brendan says:10:56am | 08/06/11

Now Nick, its no good changing your name and calling yourself “Bev”.  Putting your hand in a sock puppet doesn’t count as having a person agree with you

Last time I looked at myself in the mirror I existed as a person
Bev just happens to be my real name thank you it is not a cover.

Brendan says:

11:46am | 08/06/11

So cool, Nick and his imaginary friend post one after the other to say “Actually we are both real”.  Almost like its the same person posting. 

If I might suggest just one tiny change to your one man show?

It would be more enteraining if Nick could pretend to have an arguement with “Bev” - like a Punch and Judy show where the one actor has puppets on each hand.

That would be gold.

Suzanne says:

11:46am | 08/06/11

@Geoff - Brisbane says:11:17am | 08/06/11
You are the problem Rose, You are the problem Suzanne. Women like you two are the reason erick and nick post. You two don’t give a single damn about men, and the evidence is in your posts.

Really? You know all about me from my posts do you? I don’t recall ever saying famales can do no wrong, in fact I think just the opposite.
Try reading a few more of my posts and you’ll see that I actually agree that the family court system in unfairly biased against women, that women are not always the primary or most suitable carers, that I detest women who use this bias to punish their ex-partner or use their children as pawns to take revenge either by making up stories about abuse or by denying them access to their father. Women who are found to have fabricated abuse or rape claims, particularly if it’s for no other reason than to deny a father access, should be jailed.
You’ll also see that I think it’s terrible that women like this are awarded huge amounts of money to care for the children with no thought given to how the men, who may go on to have another family to support, will survive.

What I also detest, however, is ridiculous generalisations from Nick and Erick that all women are money grabbing bitches with nothing to offer a marriage except sex (which we withhold deliberately to maintain the ‘power’) and housework (which we don’t do) who look to ruin every man they come in contact with. Some women are like that, the vast majority are not.
Just like some men are lying, cheating, scum who shirk their responsibilities to their children, never turn up for visits, beat their wives and molest their children.

Fortunately, I’m mature and rational enough to realise that this reflects a tiny portion of the male population and I do not tar ALL men with the same brush nor do I warn other women off marriage or men based on my personal experiences.

Geoff - Brisbane says:

12:11pm | 08/06/11

@ Suzanne - You’re first post consisted of saying nick believes this because he is a bitter and hurt man. The post was patronising . Thats how i can tell.

If you truely believed what you just wrote, about how men are getting screwed in marriage, why did you initially brush all his points off as “bitter man”? Is this just a back tracking, like the racist with minortiy friends?

Bev says:

12:12pm | 08/06/11

The fact remains that that 50% of marriages will fail.
The fact remains that the custodial parent (90% mothers) will get 50% of the house + 10% for each child + a division of the other assets including super.
The fact remains that in a large number of cases men get screwed.
The fact remains that in 30% of cases they will have little or no contact with their children. Yes it is true some men give up on contact because it is either to hard and stressful and others just walk away.

No amount of posturing will change the facts. They are there in black and ink. This not to say that all women are vidictive or all men are paragons of virtue.  There are many lifelong good stable marriages out there just as there are crappy ones. The fact is in a crappy marriage men are playing with the dice loaded against them and women know it.

Tony of Poorakistan says:

12:26pm | 08/06/11

Dude, seriously. 
 
If you want to be submissive and give a woman that sort of power over you, then you can’t complain about it.

Jack says:

12:33pm | 08/06/11

And the thing you missed out Nick is that of the 80% of excuses that women give to justify their decision to the divorce, all relate back to their selfishness. For example, I was bored in the relationship, answer get off your arse and stop continually expecting your husband to give YOU meaning and excitement in YOUR life. Only you can find the fulfilment required and that means you may have to work for it. Men (or women) can not read your mind and say or do that perfect “thing” 100% of the time.
Also look at three of the most dangerous times in a marriage, a baby is born, the last kid goes to school, the last kid leaves home. Times of change when women have to adjust to changes and last to example the woman has to find reorganise her priorities. Well should reorganise their priorities but like many a man has experienced with mother in-laws, won’t let go and damage their daughters marriage to maintain control, but that’s another story.

Suzanne says:

12:37pm | 08/06/11

“If you truely believed what you just wrote, about how men are getting screwed in marriage, why did you initially brush all his points off as “bitter man”? Is this just a back tracking, like the racist with minortiy friends? “

Who’s backtracking Geoff?
I can empathise with his situation but does not mean I have to agree with his ridiculous generalisations about women.
His points, as he presented them, are those of a bitter man who’s had a very negative experience with marriage and women. As I said, if that is the case then I am truly sorry for him. However, that is not and will not be the experience of the 50% of married people who do not divorce and have happy, healthy relationships nor will it be the experience of a large chunk of those that do divorce. It is a very small minority of women who view marriage the way Nick thinks we all do.
Labelling all women the way he does, assuming we are all determinted to wreak havoc on mens lives no matter what the cost simply turns women like me away. That is, women who would be prepared to stand beside him and fight for equal rights for men when it comes to divorce, child custody.
Why would I or anyone else want to stand up for someone who clearly hates me based on my gender?

Suzanne says:

12:41pm | 08/06/11

Oh and Goeff…I don’t believe men are “getting screwed in marriage”, I believe they are unfairly treated in divorce.
There’s a difference.

iMitchy says:

12:41pm | 08/06/11

I think a lot of what you said Nick is hyperbolic to most relationships but there is women out there who take advantage of all that you have stated and I have met one or two of them (luckily, just as friends of the “happy” couples). The point that I take from it is one of equality and some feminists do like to “move the goal posts half way through the game” so to speak - so it’s no longer about equality.

Marriage is a religous term so I like your idea of giving men and women civil unions rather than marriages and seperating legal and religous terminology.
The flipside of that is that we have, as speaking humans, the ability to change the meaning of words as popular culture changes. Who’d have ever thought “google” would be a verb? The people who get uppity about how far we have strayed from proper english and words’ original meanings are the same folk who applaud Shekespeare as a genius - when in fact he actually twisted the meaning of many words and even created his own. Hypocritical isn’t it?
So we could easily change the legal definition of “marriage”.

Big hole in your point though Nick.
You really centred on sexism in the courts and within relationships themselves to make your point about the myth of sexual equality.  And you were right on the mark as far as outcomes can tend to go.
But look at the subject of the article and thread: GAY Marriage.
How the hell does your point even remotely relate to same sex relationships?

It’s a bit hard to be sexually biased in the family courts when you’re ruling on a gay couple isn’t it?

Bev says:

01:15pm | 08/06/11

Brendan says:11:46am | 08/06/11

If I might suggest just one tiny change to your one man show?

It would be more enteraining if Nick could pretend to have an arguement with “Bev” - like a Punch and Judy show where the one actor has puppets on each hand.

If you care to look at other posting to other articles you see that Nick and I don’t agree on many things. We just happen to agree on this subject.
Do some homework.
As to our agreement on this we have come via different paths. I haven’t been through divorce but I have male children, grandchildren who I worry about and know how feminism could wreck there lives (dont have to worry about the girls so much).  As a grandparent I have been involved with the family court to get 2 of my grandchildren out of a very bad situation.  So I am well aware of what happens there.  Which woke me up to what feminism is and what it entails (not what it says). So don’t call me a sock puppet of Nick.

Have a nice day!

53million says:

01:24pm | 08/06/11

Nick’s inane and inaccurate rant is 100% correct!  He knows exactly what it is like for both a man and a woman to be married. 

When a woman has her period, it’s ok.  But suddenly, when a man does it, it’s not considered ok?

I bet “Cate Blanchett” loved getting married in her $53 million ivory-tower.  She will probably try to put a tax levy on marriage too. 

What an ‘elitist’!

S.L says:

01:26pm | 08/06/11

@ Nick…............been there done that! Never again!

Rex Jones says:

01:27pm | 08/06/11

Nick - are you Erick in disguise?

Rick says:

02:16pm | 08/06/11

Quality trolling there Nick

Nick says:

02:43pm | 08/06/11

@Rex & RIck:

Just because I have an opinion that is different from yours does not make me a troll. Just because I have similar views to another poster does not mean we are one and the same.

If my opinion was so ridiculous, then why, in this small thread off my comment alone, do we have several men popping up going “yep, that’s exactly what happened to me”?

How long will it take until you stop being white-knighting ignorant sheep?

reason says:

03:14pm | 08/06/11

your pain brings such sadness to my heart, you unintelligent troll.

Nick says:

03:53pm | 08/06/11

@ Suzanne:
“Labelling all women the way he does, assuming we are all determinted to wreak havoc on mens lives no matter what the cost simply turns women like me away. That is, women who would be prepared to stand beside him and fight for equal rights for men when it comes to divorce, child custody.
Why would I or anyone else want to stand up for someone who clearly hates me based on my gender? “

I obviously do not stereotype woman under one banner as that would be enormously hypocritical of me, and would seemingly lower myself to the morals of a feminist. It is common sense that not all women are the same: their personalities lie under a spectrum (like the colours). What I am basing my argument on is the hard FACT that over 50% of marriages end in divorce. over 50% = majority.

I am angry at the family court system in particular. If you care to examine the facts here:
http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/stats.php
You’ll see the injustice. And I have a very strong feeling that the MAJORITY of women, upon reading my argument, would come to the inevitable lefty shaming tactic of ‘derp you misogynist’ (as you have).

I don’t hate anybody based on anything. I intensely dislike the modern liberal world, and the ‘if you aren’t with me you’re against me’ thinking pattern. If i say a word against Israel, i’m 100% anti-semetic. If i make an honest, fact based criticism of feminism or any of the issues i so discuss, i am immediately labeled a bitter misogynistic pig who will never get laid and will die alone.

I accept person based on their individual merit. A woman has my respect, as does any other person, until they lose. Invariably, the MAJORITY of women i know do lose it because of their sense of self-entitlement. But i’m certainly not a bigot towards them, or in fact undesirable at all. If i conclude that their negative traits outweigh their positive ones, i will quietly try to stop most contact with them.

You can see where i’m going with this, of course. Why is anything I’ve said so disgusting? or untrue?

Rick says:

04:03pm | 08/06/11

Nick, you’re a potential troll because you posted something that will obviously be viewed as inflammatory by a large proportion of readers on a discussion website.Tbh I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you weren’t actually putting the first 3/4 of the post forward as your actual views.

Kevin says:

04:56pm | 08/06/11

This reminds me of that old saying about the difference between men and women who are in a relationship:
The woman hopes that the man will change and gets annoyed because he doesn’t;
the man hopes that the woman will never change and gets annoyed because she does.

Rob Andrews says:

07:25pm | 08/06/11

The only relevant thing Nick said was to remove religion from the gay marriage debate altogether. Couldn’t agree more. Otherwise, he has simply highlighted the risks inherent in marriage, allowing us all to go in with eyes wide open. Many thanks for your consideration. However, if 50% end in divorce, doesn’t that mean half of us are happy? And what does the incidence of domestic violence do to the statistic that 60% of all divorces are filed by women, (because noone would suggest a partner remain in such a relationship)? Would that bring it down to 50%? And what about those who go on to happily remarry in later life? All of these stats enlighten us on the pleasures and pitfalls of marriage. But really, do they really tell us anything about a person’s RIGHT to get married with their eyes open or closed?

john says:

09:27pm | 08/06/11

@Nick “Marriage itself has lost all significance in this feminist-controlled postmodern day and age.”

Marriage has, but sex between a man & a women hasn’t lost all significance yet, where many women still require males in a modern world to support them, as pro creation is no longer completely necessary by fornication.
Female red back spider reproduction is a classic case of how the human race might end up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redback_spider#Reproduction

or men could end up serving women to pro create like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JehjqlzXwIQ&feature=related

fml says:

10:08am | 08/06/11

Just cant call it a marriage? why not? is that your only problem with it?

Allowing them to call their union a marriage affects you in no way what so ever.

“If the “right” to say you are “married” is the only “right” gays and lesbians claim is discriminating against them, no wonder most people in Australia could care less and feign any interest.”

You trivialise the issue, by not calling it marriage its not legal in the eyes of the law and they don’t get the same benefits as a married couple, so yes it is discrimination.

Markus says:

10:08am | 08/06/11

You can call it marriage too (can call it anything you want), it just won’t be recognised as such in this country.

Margaret Gray says:

11:31am | 08/06/11

“...they don’t get the same benefits as a married couple…”

That’s a lie.

Give me examples of what “benefits as a married couple” they don’t get.

Bev says:

11:43am | 08/06/11

fml says:10:08am | 08/06/11
You trivialise the issue, by not calling it marriage its not legal in the eyes of the law and they don’t get the same benefits as a married couple, so yes it is discrimination.

You are dead wrong they have exactly the same rights as a hetrosexual couple. It changed quite a while ago.  The only right they don’t have is the right to marry. Centerlink and the law treat them the same as a defacto couple. Many hetrosexual couples chose not to marry but are still treated the same as married people in every aspect including family court. Property sharing access to children all the same just no issue of a divorce paper.

fml says:

11:57am | 08/06/11

Its not recognised as a marriage for a start.

Tim says:

12:06pm | 08/06/11

fml,
the government won’t recognise my dog as a child for parenting benefits either.
It’s discrimination I tells ya.

Kordez says:

12:33pm | 08/06/11

@Margaret Gray.  Be proud to be part of a minority (25%).. Perhaps you could learn from those that are already part of minority groups?

“Such a parochially blind statement….and certainly not applicable to this country.” ???

“A fair go” “fair shake of the sauce bottle” ???

Are you Australian?

LeftRightOut says:

01:02pm | 08/06/11

Bev wins, no contest.

I also point to the author’s statement that
      “I am encouraged by the most recent Galaxy Poll taken
      showing that 75 per cent of Australians “believe marriage
      for same sex couples is inevitable”.”
This is a classic case of making the numbers say whatever you want them to say. Because people believe it inevitable, does not equate to support. Given how vocal the left are on such issues, I can see why people beleive it’s inevitable that they’ll get their way at some point. The Australian public are apathetic, and probably don’t spend much time wondering if gay marriage is a good idea or not - they simply don’t care.
They do care when some ideological lefty tries to change their idea of traditional values, though… this is where your cause will really, really struggle.

Good luck to you and your son… me, I don’t believe there is any reason to change the current system. Changing things could easily be seen as further degradation of “society”. We have marked increased violence in the streets, higher drug use and people would probably think that things are worse, rather then better - why would they go out of their way to support something that would only exacerbate that [perceived] problem?

Robert says:

03:04pm | 08/06/11

Many words have many meanings. Philadelphia cream cheese has an ad for a their product with a tag line of it being the perfect marriage of cream cheese and chilli source. I didn’t see anyone getting up in arms about that.

The problem is that once a “Traditional” married couple couple sign the marriage certificate then that automatically entitles them to so many protections and benefits.

It also means that we are maintaining two completely separate sets of laws that do are supposed to do exactly the same thing. It would be much easier to simply allow same sex marriage and have one set of laws.

Eleanor says:

04:00pm | 08/06/11

“...they don’t get the same benefits as a married couple…”

That’s a lie.

Give me examples of what “benefits as a married couple” they don’t get. “

For a start, a universal recognition across Australia which is endorsed by the Federal government, and is not subject to variation between states and territories. Civil unions and defacto relationships are not also recognised internationally, save for a handful of countries.

“De facto couples in the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Tasmania and Victoria have access to a relationship registry, which enables them to easily prove their relationship and provides nearly all of the rights of marriage. In Western Australia, the Northern Territory, South Australia and Queensland there is no registration system: cohabitating couples must prove that their relationship exists through a number of criteria. Since 2007 in South Australia cohabitating same-sex couples can register their relationship through a Domestic Partnership Agreement document.”

Really, it’s not hard sweetie. Found that all within five minutes of Googling.

Margaret Gray says:

07:09pm | 08/06/11

Eleanor,

Again when asked to provide evidence of State-based discrimination against same-sex couples you come up with nothing. Again.

So the definition of the ‘relationship’ varies between States.  Big deal.

There is no legal or financial discrimination.

No Google needed there.

So why do you persist on spreading lies?

“...cohabitating couples must prove that their relationship exists through a number of criteria…”

No different to any couple - defacto, married or otherwise.

“...Civil unions and defacto relationships are not also recognised internationally, save for a handful of countries…”

Not Australia’s problem, sweetie.

Take it up with them.

Rob Andrews says:

07:32pm | 08/06/11

Margaret, why don’t you want gays to be ‘married’. You have said you are happy with the current system and I believe you buy why would gays marrying make you unhappy? I will happily tell you why I think it’s not a trivial issue but I’d really like to hear your answer.

fml says:

10:11am | 08/06/11

“Marriage is a blessing from God.”

Marriage pre-dates the concept of a monotheistic religion, what happened before then? are they all heathens that were married before monotheistic religions now burning in hell?

Why would such a benevolent god be so vengeful?

Rossco says:

10:25am | 08/06/11

What about all the secular weddings that occur with no mention of god or religion whatsoever? (Which I think is now the majority of weddings in Australia).

What about half of the marriages right now that break down in divorce? Are they a blessing from god as well?

Gay couples dont want the religion to be forced to recognise their union, they want to be treated equally to have the right to marry and call it a “marriage” and not a “civil union”. Religion doesn’t have trademark on the “marriage” or weddings, otherwise all the secular weddings in Australia would be null and void. This country is a secular democracy and it’s about time that gay people were given the equality to marry.

Ian says:

10:59am | 08/06/11

fml - how can you say marriage pre-dates the concept of monotheistic religion? Since the awakening of consciousness, has been the concept of God.  Prior to the awakening of consciousness, the race was not made in the image of God.  You could say they were soul-less, and thereby could not be counted as those who’ve to be weighed for their actions.  So early humans - not in Hell.  As for your second question, why indeed.  Who could think something like that about God?

Rossco - like I said, it is a legal union.  Our laws recognize it, there is no need for mention of God for people to marry.  That is my point.  I maintain marriage is a blessing from God, whether a couple choose to embrace it and sacrifice themselves for one another, and live within the blessing is a matter for them.  I think you may have missed my point entirely, if a religion chooses to perform a ritual of marriage, to produce a “Holy Matrimony”, then yes indeed - they do have the authority of ‘trademark’, according to the rituals.

My only point was that a same-sex marriage should not be forcibly recognized by Religions where it doesn’t fit the paradigm.  Who cares whether or not people marry within the secular democracy.  Anyone should be able to, it doesn’t mean that those who live for their faith suffer in any way.

A Dose of Reality says:

11:53am | 08/06/11

Ian - your first paragraph - did you read it through?

You cannot be that discriminatory and backward - I refuse to believe it!

The term ‘marriage’ litters early literature.

Ian says:

12:17pm | 08/06/11

A Dose of Reality - Sure, I’ve read it.  Of course marriage has been documented for thousands of years, never took a position opposed to that.  I maintain that appreciation of God was man’s first thought.  Language, and thereby literature, cannot pre-date that concept.  Unless you are meaning the established Monotheistic Religions concept as it is dated in our ‘history’ books.  Rest assured, we loved God before any literature was ever produced.

If you think I am backward, wow.  How about Jesus?  He was with God in the beginning, before he was born in the flesh.  Claimed to be before Abram even.  Not that I would expect you to have understood any of the Word as it is truly meant, nor I for that matter.

Please point out how I have been discriminatory for my benefit.  Unless by my suggesting that Man, pre-consciousness, was a soulless creature, and therefore was not burning in Hell as fml indiciated I had implied, which I hadn’t.  Everything else I have written has supported recognition of Gay marriage legally, just not by Religion as “Holy Matrimony” as gifted through Divine providence.

Tchom says:

12:49pm | 08/06/11

@Ian “If you think I am backward, wow.  How about Jesus?  He was with God in the beginning, before he was born in the flesh.”

You are trolling, right?

Kika says:

12:59pm | 08/06/11

Ian - How come you didn’t know your wife was gay?

Ellen says:

01:21pm | 08/06/11

@Ian
fml said mariage predates notions of a MONOTHEISTIC religion. Since the awakening of consciousness there has been the concept of religion, but not of one almighty god. Early religions (as far as we know) were belief systems based on many different gods. The one dude in the sky with all the power came much later.

Jay says:

01:35pm | 08/06/11

Marriage is not a blessing from god. Marriage was originally nothing more than a contract between clans and tribes to cement an alliance. No god, no religion involved. Gods didn’t come into the picture until much later on. In reality, there is nothing religious about marriage, only that religion pushed it’s way into it.

Ian says:

02:17pm | 08/06/11

Kika - She is an excellent fraudster, obviously.  One always assumes their loved ones are honest, not honestly taking one for a ride. 

Ellen - I disagree.  logically the concept of a God, must proceed the concept of many.  Singular before plural.  FYI - God lives in your heart, not as an entity in the sky.  God of the living, not of the gases.

Tchom - you’ve lost me, really.

Jay - you and I have very different perceptions of history.  Time can only tell how the present will read as the past in the future.  I can guarantee it will be subjective an inaccurate however.

Strange, I never expected so much discourse in response to my advocating for the legal recognition of same-sex marriages.  But bring it, I enjoy wondering where your hearts are.

Rob Andrews says:

07:35pm | 08/06/11

I agree. I am for gay marriage but against forcing churches to participate. Why would churches marry gays? They believe gays are destined for hell. But if gays want to marry outside of religion, I also don’t believe that the religious have any say in this debate at all. Or did we become a theocracy?

Rob Andrews says:

07:39pm | 08/06/11

Ian, my friend, you tread a very different path. Even IF marriage was a blessing from the monotheistic god, we don’t practice it as it is set out in the Old Testament. If we did, polygamy would be legal and common and women would have no rights at all.

fml says:

10:12am | 08/06/11

How about we call the marriage between man and woman a “christian/Jewish/muslim/rastafarian marriage” and call every other marriage,  a marriage?

I think that would be more apt.

AliceC says:

11:15am | 08/06/11

Voting once upon a time, was once only for rich white men. Did the rest of us get a seperate ‘name’ for our right to vote?

fml says:

10:13am | 08/06/11

Thats the crux of the issue Tony, They will not get legal rights unless its called a marriage.

Zaf says:

10:26am | 08/06/11

[don’t want them to use the word ‘‘marriage’’ ]

because God forbid they think what they have is the same as what I have.  I’m special.

Rossco says:

10:42am | 08/06/11

The term “marriage” is not by definition between a man and a woman, it can also be a union between 2 people of the same sex. Really, what is your issue with gay people calling it a marriage? Do you think it cheapens heterosexual marriages? Yes heterosexual marriages which of 50% end up in divorce. The real people who treat marriage as a joke are heterosexuals. If gay people want to get married and call it a marriage, then just bloody let them. It’s hurting no one, especially the selifsh bigoted heteosexuals who think they have a monopoly on a definition.

B says:

10:45am | 08/06/11

Oh rubbish fml, the AME website itself admits that the issue of practical discrimination against homosexuals ended with the Rudd government’s amendments to 84 pieces of Commonwealth legislation in 2008. Homosexual couples are treated in exactly the same fashion as heterosexual couples under Commonwealth law, but it suits the same sex marriage narrative to continue peddling the mistruth that homosexuals are still subject to substantive and unreasonable discrimination when this is far from the truth. Homosexuals ate not the oppressed victim class of people their advocates spin them to be.

Lapun says:

11:06am | 08/06/11

Frankly I don’t give a damn!  Like Tony, I and everybody I relate to agrees on the legal rights and probably with those the formal recognition of a union.  But I cannot understand the desperate push to be able to use the word “marriage”.  It simply makes no sense to me.  Love and trust in any union comes about in the minds and hearts of the people involved and doesn’t require the social prop of a word to be lasting and worthy.  Rapidly the world seems to be galloping to the situation of heterosexuals abandoning the “marriage” status and opting for the partnership of real meaning in their union rather than a sometimes forced union based originally on religious beliefs.  I have been in a same sex relatonship that has endured over 38 years and believe the mad demands for “marriage” to be about as sensible as the mad rush to prance in public at Mardi Gras - but much less fun.

RyaN says:

12:06pm | 08/06/11

@Rossco: how many gay unions end up breaking up?

Bev says:

12:56pm | 08/06/11

RyaN says:12:06pm | 08/06/11

@Rossco: how many gay unions end up breaking up?
A great many particually lesbian relationship which are finally being recognised as hotbeds of DV much worse than hetrosexual unions.
A fact that feminists denied for years but finally had to admit was true.

Rossco says:

02:51pm | 08/06/11

Ryan…who cares? If heterosexuals treat marriage as a joke most of the time, way I see it let gay people get into it. They are not hurting anyone or taking away what heteros have. Whether they treat it as a joke like 50% of heteros, well thats up to them. But otherwise couldnt care less.

Ando says:

03:35pm | 08/06/11

I’m with you Lapun . All rights being equal I cant understand why either side of the argument cares what other people call their relationship.  Its a none issue .
Tont of P
Regardless of the polI I think that it would gain no votes for Labor but would definitley loose a few. Same for the Liberals. Anyone who would change their vote on this issue, including gays, is far to caught up in a word which will make no difference to how much they love their partner.

Robert says:

04:00pm | 08/06/11

By ONE definition. Words can have different meanings

RyaN says:

05:29pm | 08/06/11

@Rossco: then I don’t understand how its relevant to your argument. Clearly the issue exists not because of their sexual orientation but rather peoples jaundiced view on what is a commitment these days.

Rob Andrews says:

07:44pm | 08/06/11

Why do people keep saying that marriage is a man and a woman ‘by definition’? For a long, long time, (yes, even in the Bible), marriage was set out between man and children, between man and multiple women, (in some places it still is). In even western cultures marriage was illegal between black and white at one stage and Aborigines were not allowed to marry at all at one stage in our own history. We changed the ‘defintion’ as we became as universal education made us more moral and less discriminatory. A woman and a man marry when they are consenting adults. Why is it not okay for a man and a man or a woman and a woman to do the same now that we’ve cleared up the definition problem.

Rose says:

10:02am | 08/06/11

Man marrying man= ?; HUSBAND
Woman marrying woman= ? WIFE

Michael says:

11:21am | 08/06/11

You’re right rose, two wives in a lesbian marriage two husbands in a gay marriage…easy

Brutus Balan says:

12:03pm | 08/06/11

Rose, Rose, Rose !  Two nuts do not fit together and two screws do not fit together. Which part of this simple logic you do not understand?

That the L A W !
Laws of Physics;
Nature’s LAW;
Divine Design!!!

Think about that!

HappyCynic says:

12:54pm | 08/06/11

@Brutus

Bahahaha what, pray tell, do the mechanics of the universe (aka physics) have to do with 2 people (whether 2 males or 2 females or 1 of each) boinking each other?  Also there are plenty of examples of natural homosexual unions in social animals so natures laws complement homosexuality, indeed there may even be an evolutionary benefit to animals who are accepting of homosexual unions, as for divine design, if G-d didn’t want homosexuality to exist he wouldn’t have created it.

Got any other falsehoods you’d like to bring to the table (bear in mind G-d commands people not to bear false witness)?  Your understanding of the laws of G-d and of nature are quite laughable

Michael says:

01:43pm | 08/06/11

Love your work HappyCynic.

Snake says:

01:46pm | 08/06/11

Michael and Rose, I think the nut and screw analogy applies still. 2 nuts will not fit together nor will 2 screws. They are still called nut and screw but unless they are used together they don’t really fit their purpose, nor will they ever be productive.

Now it’s fine if you want to house 2 screws together cos they don’t quite fit with the other nuts, we call those defective though. As long as you realise that, and notice that the union between 2 screws doesn’t quite provide the stability that a nut and a screw provides, then that’s fine. By all means have the same legal rights as the properly paired, but do not for a second think you are going to hold a building up.

Brutus Balan says:

02:32pm | 08/06/11

@HappyCynic

Pray tell me how a screw enters a screw to fit together as a unit in perfect union? That is Physics! Pray tell where this homosexual unions have produced one living blob? What happens in natural among animals are a instinctive play like play fight to prepare for the real world of adult animals. Give us some examples of long term animal homosexuality, I pray thee? God did not create homosexuals, but degenerate humanity invents disorder against divine design in the depravity of their minds.

As much as you try to make an unnatural depraved affection natural, you too are depraved in your mind.

Suzanne says:

02:58pm | 08/06/11

“Pray tell me how a screw enters a screw to fit together as a unit in perfect union? That is Physics!”

We’re not talking about physics, we’re talknig about people.
If all it took to ‘complement’ each other perfectly was to have the parts fit together then there’d be no divorce and no one would ever argue.
Guess what…people have personalities, likes, dislikes and so on. We are more than the sum of our parts.

As for your assertion that God didn’t make gay people…if, as you believe, god made everything then yes…he made gay people. Even if it was a psychological ‘disorder’ like you wrongly claim, god still made it. He made people and all our associated bits and pieces, including the mind so it’s still all gods fault.

Tradie says:

05:01pm | 08/06/11

Screws don’t fit into nuts either.  Bolts do.

john says:

09:40pm | 08/06/11

@Tradie

We can all see Brutus Balan has screwed up

He’s also rambling on about divine design, even if the universe and everything in it was ‘divine design’ everything as it is, at this point in time was meant to be….. and he doesn’t agree with his creator there are gay men that now want marriage? oh that was by divine design too.

Perhaps by divine design human life expectancy rarely is over 80+, so we can avoid receiving the darwin award.

http://www.darwinawards.com/

Suzanne says:

11:25am | 08/06/11

So you and your boyfriend will be having a civil union then?

Kika says:

01:14pm | 08/06/11

And never marry a male girls - they’ll expect you to follow their orders. Chuck on the Burqa if you want to go out.

B says:

10:55am | 08/06/11

I don’t see how believing something is inevitable is a suitable or sensible basis of public policy. Some might believe people smuggling and aboriginal disadvantage are intractable, but we don’t succumb to those supposed inevitabilities. It’s little wonder most Australians believe same sex marriage to be inevitable when it’s impossible to have a sensible discussion on the issue without its supporters labeling its opponents as bigots, homophobes, haters and the moral equivalents of racists.

Kassandra says:

02:02pm | 08/06/11

Marriage predates recorded history. It exists in some form in every culture and society everywhere and everywhen. It is neither religious nor legal in itself but has become so in some societies such as ours. It is a social union whose primary purposes are to approve the production of offspring and to create kinship between the families of the partners and their offspring (extended family). It is universally between men and women, one or more men uniting with one or more women (ie it can be monogamous or polygamous). It has never been a homosexual union since such a union cannot produce children and thereby create extended family networks or kinships. This has nothing to do with claimed rights or wrongs of homosexual unions rather it is obvious that the concept of marriage cannot apply to them.

marley says:

09:33pm | 08/06/11

@Kassandra - so, you’re saying that my (heterosexual) marriage is not a valid one because my partner and I were beyond the age of having kids when we got married?  Hmm.  Interesting take on marriage.  But not correct in religion, law or history.

Kassandra says:

04:08pm | 09/06/11

@ marley:

You miss the point. Perfectly valid legally but that has nothing to do with the purpose for which marriage has had to be invented by every society that has ever existed. Go look up some history and comparative anthropology.

Sid says:

10:29am | 08/06/11

Nor me.  Funny how you can claim to represent ‘the people’ as a whole.

Ellen says:

01:27pm | 08/06/11

Why not let men marry men then?

Shannon says:

03:17pm | 08/06/11

aww, did a mean lady hurt you???

sook.

B says:

10:58am | 08/06/11

Seems like sound reasoning to me. A politician’s position on marriage will determine my vote.

AliceC says:

11:19am | 08/06/11

Are you serious? Or trolling?

Bobster says:

11:51am | 08/06/11

My goodness, that would mean gay marriage could become just as meaningless as the current incarnation of the institution.

We’d have gays marrying straights just for financial or cultural reasons - love might have nothing to do with it.

My god, could you imagine?

Matt says:

02:42pm | 09/06/11

Alice - I suspect trolling…

On a more serious note though, if we end up with hetero marriage and gay marriage: what will be the difference? If I decide that a gay marriage(civil union?) is legally better for me, can a hetero couple get one?

The only real way to get equality is for a hetero union and a gay union to be EXACTLY the same thing. Let the church do their thing AS WELL if they want, but in a secular society, I see no reason why ANY two people cant have the same union as any other two people.

Tim says:

11:31am | 08/06/11

Kate,
have you ever heard of preferences?
The votes lost to the Greens, inevitably come back to the ALP through preferencing.
Gay marriage as an issue will have very little effect on any election because the only people who think it’s an important issue are the gay lobby and some religious groups.

Kate says:

11:40am | 08/06/11

Yes, I know how preferences work. But you can’t tell me that parties don’t keep an eye on their first preference vote. Even if the majors eventually win due to preference distribution, parties would be closely analysing any fall or increase in the first preference vote.
I’m not religious by the way, nor am I gay or part of any gay lobby, and I think it’s a pretty important issue.

Lostie says:

11:49am | 08/06/11

“a vote loser for Gillard and the ALP”

What proportion of those who vote Labor are going to switch to voting Liberal because Labor doesn’t support gay marriage?

Diverting their votes towards the minor parties is pointless. Preferential voting means that it is going to end up with one of the two major parties anyway (in the vast majority of cases). It’s unlikely that one policy “gay rights” parties are ever going to be competition for one of the major parties.

Rob Andrews says:

07:59pm | 08/06/11

Actually no, Tim I tend to vote Liberal because I agree with their ‘small government’ ideology. But I am less conservative on social issus. The ALP simply haven’t shown a marked difference from the Liberals here. So, my choice is money in my pocket and discrimination or no money in my pocket and discrimination. Maybe I’m unique though?

Ian says:

11:18am | 08/06/11

Hmm, I hadn’t thought about the kids.  I am sure you will have a lot of people, straight and gay, wondering about where and how kids grow up now.  I am uncertain as to the adoption/fostering rules, are there currently restrictions on which couples can?  I had no idea.  I think this topic is deeper than just who shags who now.  I think I will watch Logan’s Run again or maybe consider how much better Julia Gillard and her socialist alliance/green left weekly friends could raise the next generation.  Hang on, they already are.  Now I am really scared, and fearful.

ladybuglauren says:

11:39am | 08/06/11

“They would cost kids the right to have both a mum and a dad.”

So I guess we better outlaw divorce, and make single women abort any pregnancies, since any child raised in a home without a male and female parent is having their rights eroded.

Good call.

Nick says:

11:48am | 08/06/11

@ladybuglauren

perhaps you should be enlightened as to the parenting skills of single women:

http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/stats.php

61% of all child abuse is committed by biological mothers
25% of all child abuse is committed by natural fathers
Statistical Source: Current DHHS report on nationwide Child Abuse

79.6% of custodial mothers receive a support award
29.9% of custodial fathers receive a support award

46.9% of non-custodial mothers totally default on support
26.9% of non-custodial fathers totally default on support

20.0% of non-custodial mothers pay support at some level
61.0% of non-custodial fathers pay support at some level

66.2% of single custodial mothers work less than full-time
10.2% of single custodial fathers work less than full-time

7.0% of single custodial mothers work more than 44 hours weekly
24.5% of single custodial fathers work more than 44 hours weekly

46.2% of single custodial mothers receive public assistance
20.8% of single custodial fathers receive public assistance
Statistical Source: Technical Analysis Paper No. 42 - U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services - Office of Income Security Policy

90.2% of fathers with joint custody pay all the support due
79.1% of fathers with visitation privileges pay all the support due
44.5% of fathers with no visitation pay all the support due
37.9% of fathers are denied any visitation
66.0% of all support not paid by non-custodial fathers is due to inability to pay
Statistical Source: 1988 Census “Child Support and Alimony: 1989 Series P-60, No. 173 p. 6-7. and U.S. General Accounting Office Report” GAO/HRD-92-39FS January, 1992

50% of mothers see no value in the father’s continued contact with his children.
—See “Surviving the Breakup” by Joan Berlin Kelly

40% of mothers reported that they had interfered with the father’s visitation to punish their ex-spouse.
—See “Frequency of Visitation….” by Stanford Braver, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry

63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes
—U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census
85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes
—Center for Disease Control
80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes
—Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 14, p. 403-26
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes
—National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools
70% of juveniles in state operated institutions come from fatherless homes
—U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report Sept., 1988
85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home
—Fulton County Georgia jail populations & Texas Dept. of Corrections, 1992

Translated, this means that children from a fatherless home are:

  * 5 times more likely to commit suicide
  * 32 times more likely to run away
  * 20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders
  * 14 times more likely to commit rape
  * 9 times more likely to drop out of school
  * 10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances
  * 9 times more likely to end up in a state operated institution
  * 20 times more likely to end up in prison

There are: 11,268,000 total U.S. custodial mothers and 2,907,000 total U.S. custodial fathers
—Current Population Reports, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Series P-20, No. 458, 1991

Suzanne says:

11:57am | 08/06/11

“So I guess we better outlaw divorce, and make single women abort any pregnancies, since any child raised in a home without a male and female parent is having their rights eroded.”

We could probably broaden that to removing children from any family where one parent dies. We can’t have kids growing up without a mum and dad after all.
There’ll be plenty of room in foster care once we stop removing children of violent, abusive, neglectful heterosexual two-parent families

jimmyvanilla says:

02:07pm | 08/06/11

@ladybuglauren - divorce used to be outlawed for this very reason, but thanks to previous loud and selfish movements we jumped in too quickly as a nation and removed too much of the burden of the marriage commitment in our laws. Now we’re starting to see the error of our ways, but can’t put them back! Let’s not take another risk, eh?

@suzanne - you’re passionate, but it’s just not that simple. Because of the social complexity of this issue it should take many generations to decide how it should happen if it does. Our nation could benefit a lot from some patience. We’re making decisions for future generations that they will never have a say in, can never reverse and yet will experience the full effects of without allowing it to develop during their lifetimes.

Bev says:

02:42pm | 08/06/11

Suzanne says:11:57am | 08/06/11

“So I guess we better outlaw divorce, and make single women abort any pregnancies, since any child raised in a home without a male and female parent is having their rights eroded.”

A better idea would be to discourage single motherhood and work towards better marriages instead of allowing feminists to attempt to destroy it.

Bev says:

03:01pm | 08/06/11

Have you ever hought that there is a hidden agenda here? At the present time there is strong opposition to gay adoption.  If gay marriage gets up by default they have the same adoption rights as any other married couple. Yes I know adoption is harder to achieve these days but adding more to the queue doesn’t help plus for a hetrosexual couple it is generally the last option wheras for a gay couple it is the only option.
I really don’t care if they have a civil union or whatever but I am against gay adoption.
Given everthing equal (good relationship etc) A hetrosexual couple will always do a better job because each parent brings a different perspective to child raising nessasary to raise a well adjusted adult. Please don’t raise “but they get male/female role models from our friends” A friend is not a parent and never can be except in a relatively minor way.

Robert says:

04:35pm | 08/06/11

Ahh the hysterical “Won’t someone think of the children” argument. If you defend marriage on these grands then we need to go back to the fifties and take children off single mothers so they can be adopted by married heterosexual couples.

I was raised in a Heterosexual marriage family and although my parents were married for 48 years my father was an complete dick who constantly reminded us that he didn’t want us and we were nothing but millstones around his neck.

Not his fault though he was a product of his upbringing with his married parents. For example when he asked why he had a birthmark was told by his own mother it was from where she tried to abort him with a knitting needle. And yes that is a true story.

Kika says:

04:54pm | 08/06/11

I agree Bev. Studies have shown that the feminisation of boys even just in the school system (i.e. more female teachers than male ones) has lead to boys falling behind girls in academic achievements. Male students have shown to do better in classes with male teachers.

How is a gay male parent going to explain a young girl’s first period? Call a friend? How awkward.

Rob Andrews says:

08:08pm | 08/06/11

@ Kika. Sorry, but the studies don’t show that at all. The latest studies coming out of the United States, “Why boys fail”, shows that literacy levels among boys has dropped due to a tendency to teach reading using a holistic methods at the expense of phonics. Boys can be ‘caught up’ by year five but appropriate teaching methods were not in place to meet the need. Your idea also ignores the fact that gay teachers aren’t anything new. BTW, studies also prove that while girls respond better to male teachers, boys do not show any change in learning engagement according to the gender of their instructor. If yor boys are showing obvious negative effects, it might be due to the lessons taught to them at the knee of a rather bigoted mother.

Rob Andrews says:

08:11pm | 08/06/11

Besides which, we are NOT talking about whether gays should be parents. The topic is: should they be married. What do children have to with it? And, and please cite ONE credible study showing that gays make worse parents statistically than hetrosexual couples.

Bev says:

10:26pm | 08/06/11

@Rob Andrews you can say what you like about boys education the fact is it IS falling behind. Nobody disputes that.  It has progressively fallen as policies which advance girls education at the expense of boys . It is a very delibrate policy and it is a total distortion of education of children. If girls were fairing worse why not giving both a leg up instead of surpressing the education of boys. Feminists love to talk about sexism and decrimination but are quite prepared to push policies which are quite sexist and decriminate against boys.

Diccussing children re homesexual marriage is relevant as recognition of homosexual marriage will bring further demands about adopting children which a majority of people think is bad news.

Brutus Balan says:

11:52am | 08/06/11

Sorry to break to you Thom, you have been brought up by two MEN who did not give birth to you from their rear end. Just because you were brought up by two men, it does not make it a natural family.  Two or more MEN or Women friends can easily raise a child but that is not a natural family environment. Two men can play father roles but that does not mean they equate to each other like a heterosexual couple.

Your argument proves that you have a distorted view of what is naturally normal. Your other arguments are irrelevant to the natural morality of homosexuality.

john says:

12:16pm | 08/06/11

@Thom
“Also I wouldnt mind knowing, who exactly do you think is breeding all these homosexuals who’s sexuality and lifestyle you disagree with? That’s right, heterosexuals.”

If some heterosexuals don’t like ‘what’ they might breed, then they are not fit to be breeders!

BL says:

12:29pm | 08/06/11

@ Brutus Balan

So the fact that one of those men is genetically related to Thom by having sex with his mother does not make it “natural”? Please make sense in your comments you pathetic swine.

I notice no comments from you about children being brought up by heterosexual drug addicts and abusers, but I guess you straights dont mind children suffering through all that as long as they are brought up by heterosexuals.

Tim says:

01:17pm | 08/06/11

BL,
I notice no comments from you about children being brought up by homosexual drug addicts and abusers either or is it OK if they’re homosexual?

Brutus Balan says:

01:25pm | 08/06/11

@BL: “So the fact that one of those men is genetically related to Thom by having sex with his mother does not make it “natural”? Please make sense in your comments you pathetic swine.”

Calling me a “pathetic swine” must be a homosexual genetic disorder in you. Disagree all you like but why this bad manners? Are you not assuming a lot about Thom’s history here? Perhaps you know him.

You were born because a man (your natural father) had sex with a woman (your mother) and it was not that your father inseminated another man into his anal rear. So your father is a man and your mother is a woman. Both are genetically related to you, the child born of heterosexual sex act. The former is natural the latter is unnatural. Am I making sense to you BL? When truth hits home, the erring resorts to abuse.

As for dysfunctional families, that is another matter within a natural heterosexual family which needs attention. There is nothing wrong, howbeit second best for two or more men or women raising a child together as friends. Now that is compassion. But it is not by two homosexual men or women who are pretending to be a “natural” parent. Men of similar genitals cannot mate to make a child, hence they have no right to call themselves ‘fathers’  without a biological child bearer.

Got it, MAN?

Go wash yourself you dirty bird says:

01:39pm | 08/06/11

Brutus obviously has no issues with heterosexual married couples abusing and neglecting their kids, but apparantely a loving same sex couple who have brought up a stable heterosexual man is not natural. Go figure.

Brutus Balan says:

02:17pm | 08/06/11

@Go wash yourself .
“Brutus obviously has no issues with heterosexual married couples abusing and neglecting their kids, but apparantely a loving same sex couple who have brought up a stable heterosexual man is not natural. Go figure.”

I cannot figure when I said that.  Go wash your eyes and read my comments again ‘Go wash”!  Abuse of children in heterosexual families are unacceptable but that is not to say that homosexuals are natural parents like a mother and a father. As I said two friends can raise a child and that is a second best. Homosexuality is a disorder of the mind like bestiality or pedophilia. It is unnatural to the natural order of life. If Thom is a heterosexual, he is of a sound mind and it has nothing to do with being raised by homosexuals.

Suzanne says:

02:25pm | 08/06/11

“Men of similar genitals cannot mate to make a child, hence they have no right to call themselves ‘fathers’  without a biological child bearer. “

Does that include adoptive fathers?
They have no genetic link to the child they’re raising but would consider themselves their father anyway.  You should probably get The Punch to do an article telling him how wrong they are!

I love how you think it’s ok for cohabiting men or women to raise a child “as friends” but not, apparently, as lovers. That gave me a chuckle, I must admit. You really should just admit that you think homsexual relationships are wrong and stop using “the children” as an excuse. Do you even know any gay people with children? I’m guessing you don’t.
I do and they’re every bit as good, if not better than the heterosexual parents I know

BL says:

02:36pm | 08/06/11

@ Brutus

And yet your assertion is that homosexuality is UNNATURAL, even though the the homosexual is born from a natural heterosexual act?

Or are you one of those unintelligent fools who actually believe that homosexuality is a “chosen” lifestyle?

BTW I am not gay. Im actually a heterosexual man who is comfortable with his sexuality. Are you Brutus? because it seems to me from the tone of your posts you feel alot of disgust towards homosexuals, and everyone knows thats the sign of a closet queen in the making

Suzanne says:

02:43pm | 08/06/11

“Homosexuality is a disorder of the mind like bestiality or pedophilia. It is unnatural to the natural order of life.”

Hahahahahahahaha…quality trolling.

“If Thom is a heterosexual, he is of a sound mind and it has nothing to do with being raised by homosexuals. “

Well, at least we agree on this.
You’re right, Thom being a heterosexual who functions well in society has nothing to do with him being raised by two men, it has to do with him being raised by two people who loved and cared for him and gave him a stable family home.

Since you’re such a fan of “nature” I take it you also object as strongly to babies being bottlefed, women having elective cesareans, pacemakers, any form of synthetic drg or fabric, steel etc?
Or does your prejudice only extend to two people of the same sex getting it on?

Snake says:

02:55pm | 08/06/11

The notion that a homosexual “family” is not as bad as a problematic heterosexual one is laughable. Sure a person can live a fulfilling life with one leg, but we don’t lop off every baby’s right leg at birth. We give them a chance with 2, if they happen to be in a horrendous car accident and lose a leg, then so be it, they can still live, but not quite as well.

Why give children a notable disadvantage by giving homosexual parents the right to adopt or get help to have kids. Of course they cannot really have kids without help so the whole thing is quite unnatural in creation. There is a reason only a man and a woman can conceive a child, because they are the ones meant to raise it.

Important to note that animals do show homosexual tendencies. Yes, a male lion attempts to hump another male lion but the urge is purely a sexual reaction, not a burning desire to live a fulfilling life with another male lion. He does the same thing to a female, one bears offspring the other does not. Notice your Jack Russell probably humps his pillow or your cousins leg, that does not make your dog naturally attracted to pillows or humans, he’s just horny.

Brutus Balan says:

03:47pm | 08/06/11

@ Suzanne: Does that include adoptive fathers?

Homosexual couple pretending to be a natural family is the question here. Adoptive heterosexual but single fathers are fathers but second best. Homosexuals depraved “lovers” are unnatural for men of the same genitals cannot be complementary. You should know that?

How lovingly a child is raised is not the question here for comparison but homosexuality itself is an aberration. Did it just dawn on you that I believe that homosexuality is a depravity of the human mind?

“Since you’re such a fan of “nature” I take it you also object as strongly to babies being bottlefed, women having elective cesareans, pacemakers, any form of synthetic drg or fabric, steel etc? Or does your prejudice only extend to two people of the same sex getting it on?”

The above is very amusing. Homosexuality is a moral issue whilst the rest is one of practical necessity.  Curb you mind and focus on the issue. People of the same sex cannot get on without a complementary genital. Nut and screw remember?

@BL: Here you go again with your abuse. I will leave you to wallow in your stupidity!

john says:

04:25pm | 08/06/11

@Brutus Balan says:
“must be a homosexual genetic disorder”

Are you implying homosexuality is a genetic disorder?

Robert says:

04:49pm | 08/06/11

@ Brutus Balan. So a woman who gets pregnant by a sperm donor because her husband is shooting blanks is not a natural family? Or how about a woman that gets raped but doesn’t abort the baby because of her religious beliefs. If her husband agrees to raise the child then that’s unnatural too?

By your definition adoption would be unnatural but some how you would be happy for a husband and wife to adopt a bay with no biological relationship to the child but not happy for a man to raise his own biological children with his male partner. Is that how your narrow mind works?

Rob Andrews says:

08:22pm | 08/06/11

Snake, please provide evidence that a child is worse off because he/she is raised by homosexuals. Can you cite a study? On what research is your opinion based? On your other point, nature also equips a man to procreate with his mother. Are you okay with this? Nature also allows a man to procreate with a child and until relatively recently, religion and the law allowed the “burning desire” to live a long life together. Is this too, okay?

Kika says:

01:07pm | 08/06/11

I have heard from an author who did some study into the effects of gay marriage on kids and she said that often the children of a gay parent with a gender different to that of their parents are often not appreciated or encouraged in their own being to be a girl, or a boy, or whatever they are. Because their parents world is filled with appreciation for their own sex, that kids with a different sex can often grow up feeling confused about themselves and what they are expected to be like, and how they are supposed to feel about certain things.

She said as a girl, her father was really involved in the gay community, so males and gay culture was highly valued. So as she matured, she felt as though her gender wasn’t appreciated or valued by her father and that she grew up not knowing how to think or feel about being different to the people in the environment she grew up in.

HappyCynic says:

01:28pm | 08/06/11

Care to cite any peer-reviewed studies that show that children raised in a home with gay parents are disadvantaged somehow?

And since when are the parents the only people who raise a child?  For people as ignorant or as oblivious as yourself, I’ll explain.  Children are raised by entire communities, from parents to grandparents, aunts, uncles, teachers, friends, cousins, brothers, sisters, even the local bus driver has a role to play in the raising of a child.  A child learns from all of these examples about what is socially acceptable, what roles women and men play in society, what differences exist etc.  Parents may play the most significant role but they are not the most important one, a functional society/community has the most important role in raising a child.  To give you a personal example, I was beaten by my parents quite badly, quite often from a very young age, in fact it is about the only memories I have of my parents, I didn’t learn that what they were doing was wrong from them, I learned it from the community I lived in.  If I had been raised by my parents and only my parents I would probably believe that believe that beating a child senseless is the only right way to raise a child.

Since heterosexuality is the most prevalent form of sexuality in society, I guarantee at least 9 out of 10 children, regardless of how they’re raised, will end up in at least one heterosexual relationship.

Bev says:

02:05pm | 08/06/11

@Kika
Thank you.

Suzanne says:

03:44pm | 08/06/11

“she grew up not knowing how to think or feel about being different to the people in the environment she grew up in. “

In all fairness Kika, that could be said of ANY child or teenager.
We moved house when I was 11, and I felt totally alienated in my new school.
I was a fatty fat fat teenager, of course I felt totally different to and isolated from my peers.
My best friend had red hair, she felt different too because she was always teased about it.
Very few people ‘fit in”. What the fathers of the girl you speak of failed to do was take her feelings into account and acknowledge her indivuality…many, many parents do this. It’s not just gay parents.

Kika says:

01:03pm | 08/06/11

I agree. Nothing. I got married. We woke up the next day feeling pretty much the same as the day before except tired, a little hungover with a ring on our finger.

Ask my mother about the purpose of marriage and you’ll get a different answer. As soon as we were “married” the oldies were expecting us to start breeding ASAP. So the old school idea is that marriage provides security for the upbringing of children by way of having the parents locked into a secured relationship.

Gay marriage contravenes these ideas because naturally it’s impossible for a gay couple to breed together. So it juxtaposes the traditional way of thinking about marriage.

These days heaps of people get married with no intention to have kids. Some people have kids and never get married. The norms have changed, but the cultural instutitutions that underpin it have been slow to keep up.

Markus says:

02:41pm | 08/06/11

Not to mention that with the raft of changes to divorce law in this country, the secured relationship is a facade as is.

The only person ‘locked in’ is the one who stands to lose the most out of the divorce, regardless of whether they initiate it or not.

Lostie says:

12:27pm | 08/06/11

Maybe, just maybe, she is capable of separating personal interest from duty to her electorate/party. I appreciate that not everyone has this ability, some are simply to self-centered to think of anyone but themselves.

RyaN says:

01:01pm | 08/06/11

@Lostie: yeah nice try, fact is this has nothing to do with separating personal interest and being self-centered (we already know Gillard is this person you are talking about), this has to do with being true to herself and her morals.

Lostie says:

02:27pm | 08/06/11

Actually, I wasn’t talking about anyone specifically. It was a general reference to those who would suggest that it is impossible to put ones duty to their country above one’s personal interest.

My point was that Penny Wong espouses the view of her party (duty) rather than her personal interests (self-centred). I strongly oppose the view that placing duty above personal interest is “disgusting” as you put it. I would suggest that it is admirable that a person would be so self-less to put country above their own fickle interests.

Bobster says:

03:58pm | 08/06/11

RyaN, you’re a fool.

Have you ever bothered to read or listen to Wong’s views? They’re pretty well known.

She spoke in favour of gay marriage at the last SA ALP Conference, she was on Q&A last year explaining that she is a part of the party and believes in its philosophy of presenting a united front.

Even Richo has spoken about Wong’s commitment to gay marriage and her efforts within the party to convince her colleagues to back the policy.

Stop grasping at straws we know your position - Lib good, ALP bad. Don’t tart it up.

RyaN says:

04:30pm | 10/06/11

@Bobster: so she just tows the party line lest she be stabbed squarely in the back. Looks to me like Faulkner is 100% correct about the rot in the Labor party.

Bev says:

02:21pm | 08/06/11

Ahhem the same or similar stats have emerged in Australia. More difficult to find yes but still there. Try looking and don’t expect the rest of us to do your homework.

loulou says:

02:17pm | 08/06/11

@Joeyjjj   Agree.  No arguing with that

AliceC says:

03:29pm | 08/06/11

That’s right Kika, you may not agree with gay marriage, but you understand the conceopt that two gay people getting married has no affect on your life at all. : )

Vince says:

04:26pm | 08/06/11

So the only test is whether it affects you personally?  Surely not.  We have many institutions, beliefs and customs which we hold dear, which have been with us for a long, long time and which we should not be so quick to rubbish just because it is not immediately apparent that by doing so it will not “affect you” personally.  They form our culture.  Our identity.  I have yet to hear a compelling reason as to why homosexual couples should be “married” as opposed to being recognised in a civil union other than “because we want to be”.  Can someone give me some concrete reasons why we should change thousands of years of history merely for the sake of about 0.20% of our population who already have a means to be recognised as a committed couple at law anyways?

Rob Andrews says:

08:36pm | 08/06/11

Vince, Australia was federated with the White Australia policy directly in the foreground. It was one of the few things EVERYONE agreed on. It was out culture. It was our tradition and it cam directly from the institutions that you hold so dear. We changed history to give blacks rights and to free them from slavery. When changed history to give women the right not to be bashed by their husbands. We changed history to give universal free education. We changed history to repeal death by hanging and stoning and drawing and quartering. We changed history allow people to aspire to a career that differed from their parents. We changed history to allow the basic wage and to look after the elderly. All of these changes occured in the face of people demanding that tradition be restored. And Vince, dignity is actually quite important. Telling a gay couple to pipe down because while your not married, you’re as good as married is akin to telling the African Americans living under the laws of segregation in America to settle down because while you might be at a blacks only school, it’s still a school right? The underlying implication is inequality, i.e you are not the same and we don’t want you near us. Why should gays be bothered by that? Why should anyone? Except noone else would cop it and Vince, neither would you.

Raoul Machal says:

03:26pm | 08/06/11

This is silly, Emma. The union between male and female goes back longer than we record time. It’s a basic law and principle of nature itself. The fact that some exceptions to the rule exist merely validates said rule. It demonstrates why nature/g-d/gaya/whatever has worked out the male/female union as the most sensible path for humanity.
One of the concepts that stood the test of time over the millenia in our civilisation.
Of course, in our current time of moral nihilism and ethic relativity it is easy and cheap to make verbal acrobatics and childish demands for everything and anything, but this does not change the basic foundations. As to your ‘curiosity’ - do we want to condone everything, just because we are free not to do it? Are we OK with polygamy and child brides? Are we OK for others to do bestiality or infect unsuspecting partners with HIV? Happy to see underage sex with zonked-out teenies or .... because “if you don’t like it, don’t do it!”
Right? .

jimmyvanilla says:

03:52pm | 08/06/11

“How does two poeple (sic) of the same sex getting married affect anyone but them and there (sic) family?”

Because my family - my children - could grow up in a society where minority rules, where their peers are screwed up by being purposely and selfishly brought up without mothers or fathers and where there are less protections for their children than they enjoyed before they had a voice in the world.

Kika says:

04:48pm | 08/06/11

Yeah but she’s right - Johnny changed the law to include the words ‘man and woman’. I think this was when the gay marriage thing was getting momentum.

Rob Andrews says:

08:56pm | 08/06/11

Raoul, it does go back a long way. But then again, so does polygamy, child marriage and incest. And btw, child brides are illegal due to consent issues and polygamy is illegal here for issues relating to women’s rights, (although both are condoned in the most religious of countries and the Old Testament practically shouts out approval for both). Bestiality and HIV infection again have to do with consent issues, again not relevant to consenting adults in a homosexual relationships. So you arguments are simply not valid. And what does underage sex have to do with gay marriage?

Incidentally homosexuality also goes back as far we record time and it’s interesting that you bring up polygamy as it predates monogamy, right back to the ancient Sumerians. So much for your basic law and principle. And your understanding of history is somewhat childish. Are you really stating here that teenager never used to have sex, (they certainly married young), that they never used to drink, (there was no legal restrictions on the consumption of alchol until relatively recently), that they never did drugs, (cocaine was an active ingredient in children’s cough syrup right up the beginning of the 20th century), we could go one like this all night. Until mid way through the 20th century, it was the ‘natural’ law that blacks could not marry whites. In fact, in some western countries, (like the USA), it was illegal. In all countries before the 17th century, the legal age of marriage, (and therefore consumating marriage as they understood it then), was 15 or under, (depending on the country as some countries had it (and still do) as young as seven). Within the royal family incest wasn’t only not frowned upon, it was positively encouraged. Woman in the Middle Ages were traded like cattle, and in some places they still are. So please don’t peddle the “it’s traditional” argument because it makes me feel sick to my stomach to think of all the ‘traditions’ we would still be lumped with if people like you were taken seriously.

Matt F says:

07:18pm | 08/06/11

the poll wasn’t conducted by the marriage equality group, it was conducted by galaxy. given big polling companies like galaxy depend on their reputation i doubt they’re fudging the figures to suit one client who probably pays them sweet FA of their total earnings. Once galaxy do their research they give the results to whoever commissioned them to do it (in this case the ME group, in the cases of political polls it’s generally the media) so the only reason your hearing about it is that the ME group liked the findings so they released them publicly, not because it’s made up.

Rob Andrews says:

08:38pm | 08/06/11

Toby, you didn’t state WHY you are against it being called marriage.

Switchy says:

03:08pm | 08/06/11

How are you typing your comment mel? You using a computer? A laptop? An IPad? A Mobile device? Tapping away on those keys? And you think all of that is “natural”?

Sorry to break it to you honey, but homosexuality and homosexuals have been in existence since the daw of time, which makes it a hell of alot more natural than anything you use in your daily life.

AliceC says:

03:32pm | 08/06/11

And how is being gay unnatural. With the way gay people are treated by society, do you think they would ‘choose’ it???

mel r says:

03:48pm | 08/06/11

@AliceC and Switchy Wasn’t meant harshly.  A tone can’t really be put in the keyed-in sentences.  Apologies for it coming across badly.

Should’ve put…...“cannot see same-sex unions as ever being viewed as natural”.      Or maybe not?

sam says:

02:48pm | 08/06/11

you was raised in the do as i say not as i do generation

Snake says:

03:24pm | 08/06/11

@mike j: Gold. 5 stars.

Sadly, there might be some truth to that in years to come. When socialist science stops trying to alarm the world with cherry picked global warming stats, they can work on finding the cause of, and subsequent cure to, homosexuality.

Maybe not in my life time, but certainly one day. It will be like X-men 3 all over again.

mike j says:

07:11pm | 08/06/11

Jury’s out on there ever being a ‘cure’ to homosexuality, à la X-Men 3, but there is certainly a lot of misinformation and gay propaganda around its ‘cause’.

Research into the causes of psychological phenomena has consistently demonstrated roughly equivalent contributions from genes and the environment (nature vs. nurture). To suggest that homosexuality is 100% genetic (“they are born that way”) is either ignorance or agenda.

A 1991 twin study of homosexuality (Bailey & Pillard) found that concordance of sexuality between male monozygotic twins was 52% (i.e. male twins with identical genes were only the same sexuality half the time).

Zaf says:

03:11pm | 08/06/11

How about ‘special marriage’ - for ‘special people’?

Lostie says:

03:28pm | 08/06/11

Without discriminating on the basis of the gender of the parties, how does your “marriage” differ from a gay “marriage”?

Rick says:

04:12pm | 08/06/11

SMH…..

Trent says:

04:37pm | 08/06/11

From what I understand its mainly based on a gender thing.
What the difference is?  I honestly cannot tell you. as I have not had the love of a man before. I would suggest that true gays also cannot comment on a hetrosexual relationship either. I guess the only thing we have to go on comment from bisexuals. They often comment that thier relationship with the opposite sex and the same sex are totally different relationships, different dynamics, different physically and mentally. So while not a the scientific answer there does appear to be the marked difference in relationships and love.

Rob Andrews says:

09:04pm | 08/06/11

Your marriage to your wife is essentially a solemn promise no? As is mine to my wife. Would your commitment to to that promise change based on anyone else making any promise and calling it, well, anything? I know mine wouldn’t but maybe we are just different. I hope, for your wife’s sake, that your promises don’t prove to be so fickle.

Trent says:

09:21pm | 08/06/11

Rob Andrews says:
I just would like to have a clear difference between homo and hetro.

Lostie says:

08:45am | 09/06/11

Trent:

So where you wrote :
“My relationship is not the same as a gay relationship and am offended that people think they are the same thing. “

It would have been more accurate to write “

“My relationship may bet the same as a gay relationship but I am offended that people think they are the same thing.”

That’s fair enough. If you are offended you are offended. This is where PC has it wrong. You don’t (or rather shouldn’t) have a right to be free from being offended. The “If I don’t like it it should be banned” philosophy is growing and, in my opinion, this is a significant detriment to society.

It is completely understandable that one would like to live in a world where everyone shares their view and lives by the rules that they cherish, however there is a significant difference between understandable and reasonable.

I suggest that it is not reasonable to force everyone to share the same world view and that, where possible, the more permissive option should be available to grant access and freedom to the largest number of people. We should not adopt restrictive policies to protect the sensibilities of more conservative members of the community - our restrictive policies should be a direct response to evidenced harm and harm minimisation. Where, again, harm refers to physical harm rather than offending one’s sensibilities.

i.e a child who grows up to believe that homosexuality is OK, may in the opinion of his or her parents, he harmed and the belief that homosexuality is OK is evidence of that harm. I do not support such a position - we should limit ourselves to objective harm (rather than subjective).

Luc says:

03:14pm | 08/06/11

And bigotry and hatred isnt a disorder of the mind?

Ooooohhhhh Juicy says:

03:43pm | 08/06/11

I’d say that’s more of a moral and ethical problem…

Ohhhhhhhh dryyyyy says:

06:04pm | 08/06/11

If Homosexuality is a disorder of the mind then it can be psychologically treated and cured, and it’s already been proven that is not possible with the both the psychological and medical community confirming this. And especially with the utter failure of religious-run conversion organisations in the US and other countries with claim to be able to make people “straight”.

mike j says:

06:27pm | 08/06/11

Homosexuality is far more prevalent than bestiality and paedophilia, and does not necessarily manifest as a result of childhood trauma.

It is subjectively far less offensive to pretty much everybody, including those with a sexuality bias (‘homophobes’).

Finally, the elements of informed consent are not present in bestial and paedophilic relationships.

john says:

09:49pm | 08/06/11

@Brutus Balan “Homosexuality is a disorder of the mind like bestiality or pedophilia.”

Ok have it your way… here’s a homosexual that’s been “fixed” :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xos2MnVxe-c&feature=related

Septimus says:

05:48am | 09/06/11

Disorders of the mind can’t be treated psychologically and ‘cured’.

Mental illness can’t be ‘cured’.

mike j

How is consent even relevant or a justification?  Paedophilic relationships can be consented too, if you think about it.

mike j says:

11:28am | 09/06/11

I have thought about it, Septimus, and you’re embarrassing yourself.

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

Minors are generally deemed incapable of consenting to sexual acts, but I’d be interested to hear how you think a prepubescent virgin can consent to paedophilia.

Bev says:

06:32pm | 08/06/11

Brendan you will find if you look that there are an increasing number of both men AND women who have severe missgivings about feminism and where its heading.  Check the comments in other media, feminist propaganda is increasingly being countered. Even the Fairfax press is increasing not censoring such comment.  I don’t include the ABC which still has heavy censorship. As to were feminism is heading well the UK has passed a law that women are to receive lighter sentences for the same crime as men.  Further they are seriously considering closing all womens prisons and giving women non custodial sentences or some counciling regardless of what they do (that includes murder). Worried, you bet. You don’t have to believe me check it out.

Brendan says:

08:42am | 09/06/11

This chapter is a day ole and I really should move on.

Nick, your character “Bev” has been an absolute delight.  Not really believeable, but then neither was Buffy the Vampire Slayer and she got about seven seasons.

I thought about making a few suggestions to try and give her a bit more drama, such as some race baiting or anti semetic qualities, but I don’t want to interfere with your artistic right to develop her in the way you see fit.

Hopefully we’ll duel again in another article soon.  Certianly looking forward to it

jimmyvanilla says:

03:46pm | 08/06/11

@GG: and just how are they second class? They’re just people who want something that’s not theirs and won’t stop throwing tantrums until they get it? They’ll be the same as everyone else when they just grow up, accept they’re different from the majority of the earth’s population and be happy with it.

Gossip Girl says:

03:58pm | 08/06/11

Jimmy,

Can two gay males generally walk down a suburban street, or country town holding hands without being hurled insults at and bashed? Can two gay males show affection or kiss in public like a heterosexual couple in their everyday life in public without suffering the taunts of homophobia? Can gay teenagers be proud and openly gay and date boys without sufferent homophobic taunts at school?

You have no idea how easy heterosexuals and their partners have it in society, while generally gay men are forced to hide who they are for fear of homophic taunts and being gay bashed.

The only difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals is one can biologically breed with their loved one, and one cannot.

Why dont heterosexual couples who cannot biologically have children suffer the same discrimination and bigotry as homosexual couples?

xoxo GossipGirl.

Joeyjoejoejnr says:

04:09pm | 08/06/11

GG - I’ll say it again…
This whole equal rights thing is BS.
The gays have the same rights as me…
We can marry a woman who agrees
We can’t marry a man
We can’t Marrry our sister
We can’t marry more than one woman
SAME RIGHTS
Now a Gay man, may want to marry another man as much as someone may want to marry their sister or multiple partners. Not being able to isn’t a lack of rights it is is a distinction!

greg says:

04:20pm | 08/06/11

So its a tax thing?

Now thats a different angle.

Homosexuals wont pay tax till they can get married.

What about giving transgenders a tax break because they can use the opposite sexs toilets.

jimmyvanilla says:

11:01am | 09/06/11

GG: I do have an idea because I am heterosexual. I have it good. There’s never any excuse for hate, violence or discrimination. But, that’s a separate issue. The main difference is actually that homosexuals are, firstly, attracted to their own sex. Procreation with their partners is a secondary issue that wouldn’t exist without the first. The majority of people can’t understand same-sex attraction because they don’t experience it and don’t think about it because, well, a lot of them don’t think about much at all. This breeds fear. Unfortunate, but normal. Only education can stop this.

The issue of acceptance of same-sex attraction shouldn’t be takled by providing marriage rights in their current form - because marriage rights are built around procreative powers, responsibilities and commitments. Something, you admit, homosexual couples cannot enjoy.

jimmyvanilla says:

03:59pm | 08/06/11

It’s the business of billions of heterosexual people because marriage is our institution for the protection of our relationships and our biological families, and you want it. You are different to us and we’re worried about what you want to do with marriage when you get it. We like it the way it is. We like our families the way they are. Why do you need to take something we love and change it to make you happy?

Markus says:

04:18pm | 08/06/11

Didn’t realise that making bigoted remarks requires a qualification nowadays…

Kika says:

04:50pm | 08/06/11

I am one of those bigots. But unlike some I’d vote yes because it doesn’t make a difference in my life whether other people get married or not. And yes, I have gay friends.

progressivesunite says:

04:58pm | 08/06/11

I think if gays and lesbians were allowed to marry, it may well have a significant impact on straight folk - marriage might become less and less about prescribed appropriate gender roles (I am the manly husband/I am the feminine wife) and more about 2 people supporting and loving each other throughout their lives. It might actually liberate some straight men and women to explore not-so-rigid roles in their relationships with each other?

That might be what some of the more strident “over my dead body” people are really afraid of…. Just a thought.

Lloyd says:

07:59pm | 08/06/11

Oh, poor Jimmy. How dare we want to have the same benefits as you? What gall we have wanting to express our love in a time honoured tradition? We are different to you, yes, in some ways, but, uh, we are still human beings. We just happen to have a less common orientation than you.Does that mean we should be punished for it? Oh wait…we have since the dawn of time, and continue to be so.How will it change your marriage? I really don’t get your argument….Markus, no, no qualification needed.Perhaps it was a more polite way of saying people should mind their own business….Kika, you don’t sound like a bigot…:)...and finally, progressivesunite…I hadn’t thought of that.You could be right. Another good reason, though it may seem shallow, for legalising it is the financial factor.Surely people know by now the financial benefits weddings can bring.And I’m sure our economy could use a boost.It is an issue that makes me angry because there is no logical reason to disallow it except for sucking up to the right wingers and NIMBY’s. La Guillotine is the biggest hypocrite ever citing her religious history when,er, she is an atheist. Finally, look at the countries where it has been legalised - they have not fallen into chaos. We need to set an example to countries like Cameroon and Iran and the many others that criminalise homosexuality by showing that we are an inclusive, progressive society.

jimmyvanilla says:

12:14pm | 09/06/11

Lloyd, you do have the same benefits as me as an individual Australian citizen. You have the same benefits as me as a half a couple in a committed relationship. You don’t have a time honored marriage tradition so you need to invent your own. You aren’t being punished for being gay. You’re being recognised for it.

Lloyd says:

02:55pm | 09/06/11

But Jimmy by that very logic you are saying that we are not worthy of marriage because it is a heterosexual thing. In fact there has been many same sex marriages in the past in a different context and even with the living and dead in parts of the world such as Chad. You are making it an us and them thing…you are implying that gay people don’t deserve the same rights to marriage as heterosexuals.Am I right? When you say in your first comment that you are worried about what we will want to do with marriage when we get it what on Earth do you mean? I really don’t understand how if I got married to a guy tomorrow, how that would affect you? I can’t speak for other gay rights activists but I assume they are similar to my feelings: we don’t want to “take over” or stage some kind of radical assault on things that mean a lot to people: we are simply tired of being treated as second class citizens and being punished for something that isn’t our fault.I do see it as punishment unlike you because there is no logical reason to deny it. If it really offends you that much, which honestly I don’t see why, just don’t go to gay peoples weddings.

hot tub political machine says:

10:13am | 09/06/11

I suspect Gay marriage in Australia is inevitable, but one part of your post I would disagree with is the suggestion that its silly to think of marriage as a heterosexual term. Saying marriage is not a heterosexual term is either a good example of up-is-downisim, or historical ignorance

jimmyvanilla says:

11:49am | 09/06/11

“People need to get a grip and get over it” If it was just about a word then that statement applies to the people who want what they don’t have, not the people who already have it. But it’s more than about a word. It’s the institution of marriage that symbolises a serious commitment between two adults that provides the best foundation for successful development and protection of children. While gays have rights and a voice children do not. They need the full force of the law to protect them. Gays can’t have children, shouldn’t be allowed to have children and shouldn’t be given marriage rights.

Kika says:

04:57pm | 08/06/11

I personally agree with you Annie. If the poll was for my personal opinion - I’d say no. Whether it was whether we should allow gay marriage I’d say yes because I am not gay, will never marry a woman so it’s none of my business who other people marry. I’m not down the registry office everyday making sure the people getting married are well suited and will be good parents.

Matt f says:

07:22pm | 08/06/11

but you ignored the other figures from the article saying 65% have no problem with it and 62% support it i wonder why you did that?

Lloyd says:

08:59pm | 08/06/11

What about hermaphrodites?

Rob Andrews says:

09:13pm | 08/06/11

Do you support Polygamy or child marriage or arranged/forced marriages as all of these ideas of marriage predate the one man one woman marriage definition. If not, maybe it’s time you accepted that the definition of marriage can change over time. The wonderful world that you’re thinking of would have put gays to death, along with you, if you’ve ever done anything besides pray on a Sunday.

AnthonyG says:

10:03am | 09/06/11

Hwy is it when someone apposes gay marriage people come out nd acuse you as a religeous person. Rob Anderson its not only Religeous people who are not in favour of it. I’m not religeous one little iota. I just think its queer. Look up the definition of normal, I dont think being queer cuts it. I have nothing against queers, I know some and they are very amusing.

Lloyd says:

03:08pm | 10/06/11

I find your spelling amusing AnthonyG

Matt F says:

07:24pm | 08/06/11

quoted from the article “62 per cent are in favour of allowing same-sex marriages, and a NewsPoll that showed 65 per cent don’t have a problem with it.”

unless percentages are now out of 131+% i’d say that your actually in the minority…

Peter says:

08:10pm | 08/06/11

Matt F.  Polls also show that 88%  of prisoners on Death Row in the US drink orange juice.
Pollsters can make up any figures they like by targetting a certain area.

Adrian says:

04:30am | 09/06/11

@Peter
>Once again a small minority want to dictate their rights.<
Please explain how wanting to be treated as an equal human being is “dictatorial”.

>What about the rights of the majority?  The same minority that demand rights for themselves and object when the majority disagree.<
Feel free to show how the “rights of the majority” include the right to oppress and discriminate against minorities.

Why don’t these minority try pushing their “rights” in non-western countries?
They do, and many of them end up imprisoned, tortured or killed for their trouble. Though I hardly see the relevance to the issue at hand. Perhaps you’d like to enlighten us?

Matt F says:

11:03am | 09/06/11

“Polls also show that 88%  of prisoners on Death Row in the US drink orange juice.” do you have a link to that peter? done by a reputable company was it?

of course polls can be skewed but it’s a bit much to accuse galaxy of doing this for such a small client when polling/market research companies rely so heavily on the credibility of their results. remember that these are the same guys who do political polls which are almost always accurate to within a few % so i doubt the figures are too far off.
Personally i’d trust a poll done by a legitimate company over some guy whose opinion on public sentiment is talking to his friends about it.

I wonder however, if the polls had found the opposite whether you would be claiming bias?

as for your earlier line “Why don’t these minority try pushing their “rights” in non-western countries?” They do, though it doesn’t generally end well for them. Though one would imagine supporters of gay marriage in Australia would concentrate on conveying their message in Australia first before other countries. Besides isn’t it great that we live in a country where we can have these debates (though you seem to have an issue with this for some reason.)

joeyjoejoejnr says:

06:55am | 09/06/11

Gays can’t vote? That’s news to me.
There is a serious flaw in the logic of those that claim this is a “same rights” issue…
And how insulting to Aborigines that you would compare their situation then to the gay movement now.