Hey Jim Wallace, they’re not devils down in Tassie

Harry says:

09:45am | 21/09/11

The issue is, marriage is between a man and a woman. The Gays can pick their own word. It is only in their mind that their relationship will be any less if the word marriage is not used. After all they have already destroyed (redefined) a great word like gay. It is time for this group to be told to grow up or f*ck off.

Lapun says:

10:07am | 21/09/11

Yes Tanya.    But what I can’t understand is why the homosexual pairings are so hell-bent on ‘marriage’ at the same time as heterosexual pairings are giving up the institution of marriage in increasing numbers, for the preferred status of partnerships.  I am perfectly satisfied that ‘civil union’ rights are quite satisfactory for all partnerships, homo or hetero, and it is only the current outcry that gives me the s…s!

fml says:

10:32am | 21/09/11

Harry,

You are seriously crying over a word?? sorry no, two words. It makes me wonder, would you deny the happiness of two people, because of two words?? or is there more to it?

Spooky Gays says:

10:47am | 21/09/11

Awesome Harry, love your us and them attitude. Remember people - oooooooohhhh the gays are out there and who knows what THEY are doing or planning or thinking. You sir, have contributed so greatly to society and culture with your open and thoughtful wisdom.

PsychoHyena says:

12:02pm | 21/09/11

Harry what then happens if straight people prefer the word that homosexuals have chosen? Do we back off from that, or does it become a “we’re straight so we’ll take that thankyou”?

jade (the other one) says:

12:26pm | 21/09/11

Harry, isn’t it only in the mind of heterosexuals that their marriage will mean any less if gay people use it too?

I mean really, I would think my parents’ relationship quite weak and pathetic if it became anything less meaningful to them, because two people of the same gender entered into the same relationship.

jon says:

01:19pm | 21/09/11

Harry, if it’s all about the word then why aren’t cooking shows being targeted by the ACL? You can hardly watch them without a recipe being referred to as a “wonderful marriage of flavours”
Oh noes! They are stealing your special word!

Robert says:

02:07pm | 21/09/11

@ Harry. Since when does a word have one meaning? Is marriage the civil legal side of signing a marriage certificate, which has nothing to do with the church, or is it the religious ceremony? If you are married in a church in the eyes of your petty vengeful God does that make it a real marriage compared to someone who just goes and signs the paperwork? Maybe we need to work on that definition of yours.

Wow I just looked up to find the definition of the word “SET” and there are hundreds of meanings. Perhaps you can right to the Oxford English Dictionary people and get them to just pick one definition and get them to find other words for the other definitions.

While I’m at it you better bring a class action against Kaft. They had an ad on TV that claimed their new product we the perfect marriage of cream cheese and chilli source.

OMG I just realised you may not know that I mean the source that you put on food and not the origin of the chilli because ‘source’ has more than one meaning.

Language is so confusing. 

Almost as confusing as having two names for something that are the same f*cking thing.

Harry says:

02:52pm | 21/09/11

fml, words have power and meaning. If you think that they are inconsequential then great, the gays can stop being denied happiness and pick any other word they like, or better still make one up

Harry says:

03:03pm | 21/09/11

I find it hilarious that the losers that dismiss marriage as only a word with many uses and in their twisted argument deliberately ignore the socially understood meaning of the word, which is why the gays fight so desperately to have it. The moment you suggest it is just a word the more you support the stance to tell the gays to grow up and pick another word. Waiting for more amusement.

fml says:

03:14pm | 21/09/11

Harry your so gay :p

fml says:

03:15pm | 21/09/11

The spelling errors were deliberate in my last post.

Chris L says:

03:35pm | 21/09/11

Gosh, Harry. Maybe we Australians should have invented our own language, since English clearly refers to a language spoken by the English.

Do you think that makes any less sense than what you said?

neo says:

04:13pm | 21/09/11

Harry has hit a nail on the head there. If you think gays should “marry” because “marriage” is just another word, then you should have no problem in calling it something else, because it is just another word.

On the other hand, if “marriage” is not just another word to someone, that someone has every right to resist the change to the meaning of that word.

Robert says:

04:33pm | 21/09/11

Harry okay let’s call it Garryage.

Now we can employ hundreds of public servants to take the current marriage legislation, make a photo copy of it, liquid paper out the work marriage and replace it with garryage so that we have two completely separate laws to do EXACTLY the same thing.

Harry you are not only a protector of the English language but a jobs creator as well.

Let’s hope the Lesbians go for it though. It is GLBT after all and they might feel excluded. Better make some more copies so we can have Lessiage and Birriage as well for them and the bi-sexuals. The transsexuals should be right they can have your marriage once they’ve transitioned.

Dog Bless You

GlendaSings says:

05:10pm | 21/09/11

Harry, if you look historically at the use of the word ‘gay’, it began to be used in contexts other than ‘happy’ in the late 1800’s. At that stage, it was used to describe young promiscuous people…either hetero or homosexual.

Then it was used as an insult against homosexual people, and in fact, still is. Gay people did not ‘steal’ the word. It was thrust upon them by bigotted people. And hearts do not leap for joy hearing kids in the shopping centres say to each other “You’re so gay” in taunting voices.

After a while, homosexuals began to use the word themselves, which took some of the sting out of it. Kind of like black people using that n word that is so incorrect to say these days except by rappers apparently.

Words like ‘gay’ change their meaning over time, often multiple times. It’s like the word ‘marriage’. It originally meant ‘property of a man’ and was used for both male/female and male/male relationships. In some parts of the world it referred to polygamous relationships. In our own country, it was only applied to relationships between white people, with our indigenous people barred from marriage as recently as 1967. The word marriage has meant many things to many people over time, and is not set in stone with a single definition as you would have us believe.

neo says:

06:21pm | 21/09/11

We can only hope the word “marriage” does not go down the same path as the word “gay”.

Taylor says:

10:28pm | 21/09/11

So why not, let’s just create a new institution, we can call it gayage, with all the same benefits and protections as marriage. The only difference is the name right? But then while we’re at it let’s have different buses, public toilets and benches for non white people. Everyone still get’s the same thing right? They just have to use a different thing depending on their skin colour. Everyone has equality because they all have access to the same thing right?

As long as two different names for marriage exist and are applied based on sexuality IT IS STILL DISCRIMINATION!

Paul says:

06:00am | 22/09/11

What’s hilarious Harry is that it is going to happen. Same-sex marriage will happen. And I would love to be around to see the smile wiped from your face when it does. So grow up and get used to it or f*ck off.

Boggled says:

09:29am | 22/09/11

I believe in Queensland, legislation did not state marriage was to be between a man and a woman until 2004 when it was amended. Anyways, why do same sex couples WANT to get married? This, I don’t understand. Marriage has always been seen a religious thing, through all the years, although the majority of marriages in Australia are done by civil celebrants rather than religious figures, I still hear the and “under the witness of god” stuff at these ceremonies. Anyways, back to my point, I do not understand why same-sex couples want to marry? My parents together 25 years, not married, mum passed away this year, my dad has got all the rights as a married couple would to her estate. Is it because same sex couples do not understand the de facto laws? or is it because they see it normal for people to grow up and get married? In that case why don’t they see it normal for a man and a woman to be together and not that of the same sex.

Jeremy says:

10:22am | 22/09/11

In that case, from this day forth, a union between same sex couples is hereby known as “Harry”

Happy?

Reason says:

11:17am | 22/09/11

@Robert

“Harry okay let’s call it Garryage”

Surely Harryage would be more appropriate ... and I’m sure Harry would be stoked!

neo says:

05:55pm | 22/09/11

I want to call my table a chair.

Shane says:

08:38am | 23/09/11

@Harry How about YOU grow up or f*ck off?  You’d tell a grown man who pays taxes, looks after his mates and contributes just as much as you to his society that he can’t get married cause matrimony is all yours and you don’t like anyone else to play with your toys?

I don’t recall there being a gay conference where the homos told heteros they can’t use the word gay anymore because it’s theirs now. It’s not the Gaza strip mate - it’s a word!  It’s a word that has been used to celebrate a long term relationship (decades worth in fact) between a man and woman that’s true, but it doesn’t mean that you can’t use it between two men or two women as well. 

In case you haven’t noticed, people still use the word gay to mean happy, even in a non-homosexual context.  The word hasn’t been bogarted, it just received a twin brother (albeit a pretty funny twin brother with half decent fashion sense).

Just cause I’m feeling cheeky and anarchic today I’m merely going to end by saying fundamental religious and nationalist nutjobs have the right to marry in our country, but not normal ole gays?  ICB!

Tedd says:

09:29am | 21/09/11

They are discriminated against, especially those that are not easily gender-assigned.

JS says:

10:06am | 21/09/11

i think you will find they are not excluded from entering a legal contract.

Ben says:

10:38am | 21/09/11

What I can’t understand is that those genetically predisposed, by an accident of their birth, to loving multiple people at the same time are equally precluded from co-opting the word marriage for their own relationship(s). If homosexuals are a minority who are so deserving of protection that they need to have their relationship entitled marriage, even more so the smaller minority of the polyamorous.

Timmy says:

12:23pm | 21/09/11

Marriage has significance beyond a legal contract. It carries significance within the community. It is a public affirmation of a relationship between two people. It is a recognition of a biological reality. It has for most people a spiritual dimension.

kate says:

01:18pm | 21/09/11

@Timmy “Marriage has significance beyond a legal contract. It carries significance within the community. It is a public affirmation of a relationship between two people. It is a recognition of a biological reality. It has for most people a spiritual dimension.”

Exactly.  Which is why marriage equality (not civil union equality, or de facto equality) is so important - legally, psychologically and symbolically.

neo says:

04:14pm | 21/09/11

You can learn from Timmy, acotrel.

acotrel says:

04:42pm | 21/09/11

@Neo
Does Timmy mean spiritual, like what comes out of a bottle, or like what comes out of a lamp when you rub it ?

neo says:

06:19pm | 21/09/11

I may be mistaken, but I think he means spiritual as in not being an empty shell of a human being.

RyaN says:

04:34pm | 22/09/11

@kate: why would you want spiritual recognition from a group who explicitly dismiss same sex relationship?
I can understand the legal thing but anything else seems bizarre!

Aaron says:

09:18am | 21/09/11

To my knowledge, the bible has some pretty clear things to say about homosexuality. It’s not true that only religious people could get married. In the Torah, it mentions marriage and some associated rules, but doesn’t mention that to be married, the people must be religious. These people (towards the beginning) also had several wives.

Fred says:

09:51am | 21/09/11

No Nathan, it comes down to natural unions verses unnatural couplings and how far we are prepared to sully our moral and society principles.

Lapun says:

10:10am | 21/09/11

Fred.  What are ‘unnatural couplings’?  Have you ever looked sensibly at animal life (that includes us) frequently doesn’t discriminate?  e.g. Check out the sex of the dogs you see mounting in the backyard.

marley says:

10:14am | 21/09/11

@Fred - first, there are plenty of examples in nature of homosexual couplings, so what make you think it isn’t “natural.”  And second, even if something isn’t natural that doesn’t make it immoral - unless you think that travelling by airplane is immoral - because it sure as hell isn’t natural. please explain why something has to be “natural” to be

Erick says:

10:47am | 21/09/11

@marley & Lapun - Rape also occurs naturally in animals - as well as cannibalism and other unpleasant stuff. So it’s a bit risky making that argument.

Aaron says:

11:16am | 21/09/11

I went to the zoo and they had gay lions!! (hehe, I’m reminded of Gladiator “You sold me Queer Giraffes “)

marley says:

12:15pm | 21/09/11

@Erick - umm, that was the whole point - “natural” doesn’t equal “moral” and “unnatural” doesn’t equal “immoral.”  So don’t try to argue that something is immoral because it isn’t what you think of as natural.

Paul Horn says:

12:17pm | 21/09/11

True Marley but many animal species also practise extreme violence against members of their own who indulge in what one might consider homosexual relations. Chimpanzees are one such species going to the point of violently removing their “homosexual” counterparts from the troop!

marley says:

12:49pm | 21/09/11

@Paul - it still goes back to Fred’s argument that unnatural = immoral.  Prove it.

kate says:

01:13pm | 21/09/11

@Fred - homosexuality is natural to me, just like heterosexuality is natural to you.

Margaret Gray says:

01:50pm | 21/09/11

“...homosexuality is natural to me…”

To you it may be…but it is most certainly not normal.

Morality has nothing to do with it.

James1 says:

02:12pm | 21/09/11

“To you it may be…but it is most certainly not normal”

In this country, the word “grey” is not normally spelled with an “a”.  Thus your name is not normal either.  Does that make it wrong?  Should you be allowed to marry?

kate says:

02:32pm | 21/09/11

I’m also left-handed, which - like homosexuality - is statistically abnormal.

And your point is what exactly?

neo says:

04:16pm | 21/09/11

kate,

left handed people are weird, you weird, weird person

/jest

Margaret Gray says:

05:12pm | 21/09/11

“...I’m also left-handed, which - like homosexuality - is statistically abnormal….”

A vacuously stupid statement. 

Who decreed that being right-handed was the prevailing “normal”?

From such a banal causation equals correlation attempt, I can only construe that all left-handed people are homosexual?

My dear husband and elderly mother will be SHOCKED to learn this dormant fact about themselves.

steph says:

06:10pm | 21/09/11

I have to reply to Margaret Gray who just contradicted herself BEAUTIFULLY there…

“Who decreed that being right-handed was the prevailing “normal”?”

So you are essentially saying that because the majority of people happen to be right handed that they are not necessarily ‘normal’.

How does this differ from heterosexuality? Just because the majority are heterosexual, this doesn’t make it the norm either….

Steve says:

08:48pm | 21/09/11

Sexual attratction is for the purpose of reproduction - something same sex couples can not naturally do so same sex attratction is not natural. It goes against what nature intended. Human bodies are naturally designed to be compatible with those of the opposite sex. Anything other than what nature intended is not ‘natural’. People can argue that point all they like but it’s simple biology. And going against nature has proven often enough to be a bad idea.
It’s all very well to say people should choose. That’s it’s their own business what they do behind closed doors. If only it were that simple. My problem with this is that it’s not just about who people love. If it was I’d be fine with it. But this will inevitably lead to demands for same sex adoption, IVF etc. Children being raised by a mother and a father is what nature intended. That is ‘natural’. Sure, children might be raised alright by same sex parents just as children can be raised by single parents but neither is an optimal situation and neither situation should be entered in to by choice or encouraged. We find ourselves as a society constantly having to apologise for generations who are messed up as a result of ideas that may have seemed a good idea at the time. I think we’re heading for more of that.

Sceptic says:

07:05am | 21/09/11

Wow, unsubstantiated comment of the day!

Nathan says:

07:14am | 21/09/11

300 000 men enlisted pretty safe to say that at least 1 in 300 where gay. It may not be fact but in all likely hood

C1 says:

07:15am | 21/09/11

To quote Bruce Ruxton,

‘There were no poofters in the trenches in 1915-if there had of been the boys would have been right on top of him!!!!’

Does it matter whether they were gay or not?

Castro says:

07:21am | 21/09/11

Yeah, total revisionist bullshit.  If you can’t prove with documentary or other evidence a single gay ANZAC, then you are just putting your own 21st century spin on the people of a hundred years ago.  The comment says more about you than about the ANZAC’s.

John C says:

07:40am | 21/09/11

cite a reference please.

Dienekes says:

08:07am | 21/09/11

Don’t know if you can substantiate that about the ANZACS.

The Navy, on the other hand…..

Sceptic says:

08:08am | 21/09/11

@Nathan

2nd most unsubstantiated comment of the day!

Jason Todd says:

08:09am | 21/09/11

Does a comparison like that need to be substantiated? I feel it stands to reason. It’s on par with saying that hundreds of ANZACs had red hair. What’s your point sceptic?

nathan says:

08:37am | 21/09/11

i don’t need to cite anything i didnt say it was fact i said in all probability. So you guys seriously think there where no homosexuals that is laughable

Its not like being gay is bad is it?

TChong says:

08:47am | 21/09/11

Ah yes
devotees of the Bob Katter school of “aint no pooftas ‘round here, mate”
ALL Oz forces were 100% dinky di hets. , of course!
We cant have it any other way, our national mythology depends on it.

Why do yous feel so threatened by a highly probable suggestion ?
WTF is with this homophobia. ?
after all, it is the 21st century , and pathetic fears about sexuality really does belong to 100 yrs ago.
Malhoi - just as well you didnt sing the “Lumberjack “song , otherwise our intolerant pals will be demanding you prove the lyrics are true.

Direct says:

09:39am | 21/09/11

Best Troll Ever

Lapun says:

10:20am | 21/09/11

Malohi, I was well and truly around during and at the end of World War II and through a female cousin of mine, in contact constantly with the entertainment parties of the time.  Homosexuatlity in Australia was hardly known or heard about pre-war, but there was a huge explosion of homosexual behaviour in Australia when the soldiers returned home after the war.  Some freely admitted that they had their first homosexual contact, either physical or emotional, in the loneliness and terror of serving the country, and had come to realise it was more to their liking.  Some no doubt returned to hetero activity on return, many however remained homo or bi-sexual after. 
Note:  I refuse to use the word ‘gay’ in any circumstance.  It is the last word that should be used for what in the past was, and still is today, an oppressed society group, much more unhappy with life, than ‘gay’.

PJ says:

10:52am | 21/09/11

Homosexuality goes back hundreds of years, some of Englands greatest (and not so greatest) Kings were homosexual, and lets not forget Roman orgies where ‘anything goes’

Shane From Melbourne says:

11:38am | 21/09/11

I’m pretty sure the ANZACS had an “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. (Which has just been repealed by the United States, by the way)

Shane says:

12:31pm | 21/09/11

I think your assertion that there were “hundreds if not thousands of gay ANZACs” is a modern day twist and therefore not appropriate.

For a start, the word “gay” at that time meant “to be happy”, its meaning had not yet been bastardized.

As for the sexuality of the ANZACS, I have no doubt that some had homosexual tendencies, but the reality is that homosexuals back then probably didn’t enlist.  The homosexual world very much kept to themselves those days so the homosexuals who did enlist would have kept it to themselves.  In general society homosexuals didn’t, ever admit to being so.  It was hidden and the population were happy that it stayed that way.

The records of every soldier who enlisted in WW1 are available online if anyone cares to look, the national archive is the place to look.  I’ve actually looked at hundreds of records of WW1 soldiers, and the records include all manner of things like medical records, pay records, charges for being AWOL, hospitalisation for Venereal Diseases etc.  I’ve not seen one record of homosexual acts being committed.  So the guys either weren’t homosexual, or they were very careful not to get caught.  Given the Australian soldier’s ability to get themselves in trouble at the drop of a hat, it’s pretty safe to say that homosexuality, if it existed in the 1st AIF, wasn’t a problem at all.

When I was a serving member in the 1980’s, we had known homosexuals serving at the same time.  No-one complained and no-one dobbed them in.  They did their jobs and that was all they had to do.  We were more tolerant of homosexuality than a lot of other sections of society.

However, Malohi, perhaps you should stop making idiot statements.

malohi says:

12:53pm | 21/09/11

You start by argument by asserting that there could not be gay soldiers as the word meant something else back then and you accuse me of idiot statements.
I never said there were hundreds of openly gay ANZACS, in fact I would assume there were not many openly gay anythings back then.
Homosexuality is not new, it existed back then, common sense would dictate that out of the tens of thousands of ANZACs, many were homosexual. Why is this such a problem?

Tedd says:

01:07pm | 21/09/11

Openly gay people will now be able to serve in the US military after repeal of controversial 18-year-old DADT (don’t ask don’t tell) law

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/20/dont-ask-dont-tell-ends

There are an estimated 65,000 serving gay and lesbian US servicemen and women.

Brisbane Bryn says:

01:14pm | 21/09/11

@malohi

Well said I think the Greeks invented it.

David says:

01:42pm | 21/09/11

Saying there were no gay ANZACS is as moronic as Bob Katter claiming there are no gay people in his electorate.

Gay people are everywhere. Always have been always will be.

freewoman says:

01:56pm | 21/09/11

Wow - what a reaction! I hate to break it to you all, but homosexuality has existed since…oh I don’t know, since humans have existed…and the more identity- focused men and women living gay and lesbian lives were certainly doing so before WW1! Of course it stands to reason there were gay ANZACs - whether they lived openly gay or engaged in clandestine activities, rest assured they were there! (just as there were lesbians in the nursing corps in Europe and wherever…)

This is yet more evidence that it’s high time we started including gays and lesbians in school history lessons….

Robert says:

02:24pm | 21/09/11

@ Freewoman. Careful you don’t upset Harry from the first comment. Homosexual is a reasonably recently invented word so you’ll have to use some other word to describe people who may have had some sex attractions before the work was first invented.

EM says:

05:21pm | 21/09/11

My great uncle was gay and an ANZAC.  And from what my dad says, apparently my great uncles boyfriend (also an ANZAC) was gay too; but he’s not 100% on that one…  Their wives, two lesbian nurses they met during service in the war, were apparently quite gay as well.  Both couples lived next door to each other until they died - I guess that made hooking up with their actual partners a lot easier.

Sorry to sink your boat guys.

Just Sayin' says:

08:10pm | 21/09/11

C1

“There were no poofters in the trenches in 1915-if there had of been the boys would have been right on top of him!!!!”

So, they were ALL gay?

AdamC says:

09:35am | 21/09/11

Yeah, a bit weird to deny the existence of a ‘homosexual lobby’, when you work for a gay lobby group. (Sorry, ‘marriage equality’ group’.)

As a gay man, what is wrong with us having a lobby anyway? Everybody else has one.

I also agree this was a bad article. Most of us find sneering personal-attack pieces a bit of a turn-off.

Jackie says:

10:21am | 21/09/11

I like the idea of a “Homosexual Lobby”, is it decorated by Martyn Lawrence Bullard?
(sorry stereotyping, couldnt help it.)

David says:

10:23am | 21/09/11

@Timmy,

So you are not openly hateful of your gay brother. Sounds like you just hate him in secret.

Timmy says:

10:28am | 21/09/11

Actually David, I love him so much that we can openly and rationally discuss our differences

Robert says:

02:31pm | 21/09/11

And there are no Heterosexual lobby groups either. Oh that’s right they’re called churches.

Remove their reasons for objecting same marriage from the debate and the reasons for us not to have the right to marriage is NIL.

TChong says:

08:15am | 21/09/11

if yur fortunate enough to meet the right person, why not ?

MarkS says:

08:37am | 21/09/11

@Tchong
Once the ring is on the finger, the ring is also in the nose
They may have been the right person before marriage; it is unlikely they will be after
Family court

Mahhrat says:

09:33am | 21/09/11

@Tchong, Joanne raises a good question.

I know a couple who are life partners - been together years and years.  They are violently opposed to any need to “demonstrate” their love for each other.

In fact, they have some very interesting things to say on the topic, about its historical origins and so on. 

The point is, “Why Not?” isn’t a good reason to go through all the hoopla.

I think, 30 years ago, the wedding day was basically a day for the ladies.  Now, it’s a day for the wedding planners.  It’s utterly ridiculous.

acotrel says:

10:02am | 21/09/11

@Joanne
I’m not religous, I got married to express my love for, and commitment to my best friend.

TChong says:

10:32am | 21/09/11

MarkS
Hope thats not thru bitter personal experience. sincerely.
Mahhrat - agree about wedding rituals : clergy, flowers, limos etc as crap, but the level of circus is up to the participants.
Me and my gal, been together since meeting as teenagers in ‘84, and to use a hackneyed term- still madly , deeply for each other.
( I’ll pause, while you stop retching).
So, at the risk of sounding overly pompous, we reckon we might just know a little on how a relationship can last , and while it dont work for some, it still works for others.
Agree equally that a “bit of paper” means nothing, nor should it mean something- if the luv,+ committment not there to begin, then a bit of paper aint going to change things in that persons inner heart and mind.
Each to their own , folks, as long as you dont cause hurt to others. agree ?

fml says:

10:39am | 21/09/11

let me guess joanne you are about 21 years or under?

PJ says:

10:56am | 21/09/11

I’m with Joanne, considering the divorce rate these days why would you want to? you certainly don’t need to anymore, you can have kids out of wedlock and they don’t have the stigma of ‘bastard’ so why bother? why do you need a party and piece of paper to prove your love for someone?

PsychoHyena says:

12:26pm | 21/09/11

@fml I’m almost 30 and while my wife and I are married, it was not for ourselves but for our families, we knew that we loved each other and a piece of paper + ceremony wasn’t going to change that, and you know what? It hasn’t.

jade (the other one) says:

12:39pm | 21/09/11

Because Joanne, for some people, that public declaration is meaningful. The affirmation of their love in a public ceremony, and making a vow of commitment that is legally registered and insoluble except by law is meaningful.

For some people, tradition is important. For others, religion.

If you don’t want to get married, and you feel happy in your partner’s and your relationship without that piece of paper, then that’s wonderful for you. But to deny other people the right to conduct their relationships in the way that will make them happy, because of outdated and archaic notions about morality, or because you think that since you don’t feel a need for it, noone should, is wrong.

fml says:

01:48pm | 21/09/11

Good for you hyena.

Robert says:

02:57pm | 21/09/11

One word Joanne. Divorce

The government is very quick to classify a couple as a de facto or take some one’s word for it regardless of same sex status. I know a number of couples who were in committed relationships that no longer consider themselves “married” but continue to live in the house they bought together for financial reasons.

No matter what they do or say without an formal divorce many government agencies still treat them as being in a de facto relationship. This means no ability to claim unemployment and a financial drag on the other party who is forced to financially support their ex partner.

People can crap on all they like about love and commitment but at the end of the day Marriage is and has always been a financial contract that allows for legal ownership of assets and who they go to on your death.

Since women are no longer classed as an asset of the husband and lumped in with the life stock, after being bought from her father as the Bible says, there is no reason that marriage needs to be limited to between a man and a woman.

neo says:

04:24pm | 21/09/11

Marriage never was and never will be primarily a financial contract, don’t say stupid things.

Robert says:

04:40pm | 21/09/11

Neo you are kidding me aren’t you?

The husband paying a dowry to the father for a wife that was considered his personal property is not a financial transaction?

If Christians want to argue for traditional biblical marriage that’s what that are talking about.

BTW if the wife turns out to be a dud and can’t provide him with offspring there’s also a loophole where he can rape one of his slave in order to have a son.

The Bible has an answer to everything if you read it right

neo says:

06:24pm | 21/09/11

Robert, The Bible indeed has an answer to everything, different people take different things out of it, depending on what their soul is searching for.

Robert says:

08:41pm | 21/09/11

Jesus give me strength and save my from your followers

Jeremy says:

10:29am | 22/09/11

Because it made me happy.

M B Andrews says:

08:31am | 22/09/11

It’s a heartwarming thought Al B. However, there’s no basis in fact.

Sadly, the only proper study in this area shows the exact reverse of what you’re suggesting. It’s research that looks at the Same Sex community in Denmark. Please see the summary at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20033129

From my reading, it indicates that while same sex coupling is culturally accepted in Denmark, suicides amongst those couples are still significantly higher than those within the heterosexual community.

Der says:

08:29am | 21/09/11

We can already adopt, dink.

HappyCynic says:

08:46am | 21/09/11

“Gay people want marriage for the adoption of children”

Not true actually, you don’t need to be married to adopt.  Also I believe most of the country allows gay people to adopt already.

Ted says:

09:35am | 21/09/11

Yes Der, more children in legalised child abuse where the poor kid will not experience a balance family. It always amuses me that people who choose to live in a same sex relationship think they have a right to children, which is biologically impossible from their life style choice. Just proves that greed and selfishness trumps children’s rights every time.

fml says:

09:47am | 21/09/11

“This is why i don’t support gay marriage because i don’t believe the whole side of the argument is being told”

That is why you dont support gay marriage?? because you have a gut feeling that they have an ulterior motive?

David says:

10:29am | 21/09/11

@Ted,

So it is biologically impossible for gay people to have children. So what about the thousands of gay parents that have kids. Most samje sex families are the result of gay people attempting a heterosexual relationship. Such relationships are always doomed to fail and you end up with samje sex parented families.

Bomb78 says:

11:01am | 21/09/11

Ted: the gender of the parents is less important than the love and support they give to children. The homosexual people I know would each make superior parents to any of the welfare recipients in the street I live in - but they can just keep breeding with whoever comes along for the party.
And one of those gay men tracks down sex offenders for a living. He’s a great a story about busting the myth that gay men = sexual predators.

JuzzyD says:

12:25pm | 21/09/11

“which is biologically impossible from their life style choice”

Someone is disgusted in themselves, aren’t we Ted. I have to admit, I have never found a man to be the least bit sexually attractive. Not once.

You know what that tells me? Just like I don’t choose who I look at and think, “She’s smoking hot, I’m gonna get me some of that.”, I’m pretty sure men don’t “choose” to be attracted to other men. The only way you could think it’s a choice is if you are repressing your own homosexual thoughts. Get it out there Ted, live a little and have fun, stop being so repulsed by your own thoughts.

jade (the other one) says:

12:47pm | 21/09/11

@Ted, so do you support women whose husbands leave them or husbands whose wives leave them being forced to give up their children for adoption or foster care to heterosexual families, since they can no longer provide “balance”? Do you support the government removing children from the homes of unmarried mothers or teenage mothers, since there is no guarantee that the father will stay around without the commitment of marriage, thereby potentially leading to the situation of unbalanced families you believe is child abuse?

Or perhaps we should just forcibly sterilise all people until they get married, to ensure that children are protected from the evils of this “abuse”. We would also have to outlaw divorce, and simply ban miners, oil rig workers, long haul truck drivers and the like from procreating, since usually the men aren’t home enough to act as role models and provide balance in these families. And of course, farmers who have to send their children to boarding school can’t be allowed to breed, since the children aren’t being exposed to the example of heterosexual monogamy enough to ensure that they are being given “balance”.

Hayley Suskia says:

12:59pm | 21/09/11

Legalised child abuse?!  I am a child of a same-sex household. My parents have been together for over 2 decades, and I have been raised in a loving and supportive household. Please do not judge before you have actually met someone raised in a LGBTI family. We are just the same as you.

kate says:

02:01pm | 21/09/11

There’s no conspiracy Richard.  Many gay people, myself included, are quite upfront about the fact that the driving force behind our demands for marriage equality is to protect our kids, to give them the stability and social acceptance that marriage still brings, and to help remove the stigma from gay relationships which harms gay kids, children in gay families, and society in general.

Ted says:

02:45pm | 21/09/11

Nice try (rant) Jade, the point is you don’t deliberately put a child into a non-balance family to start with. Families breaking up is known as shit happens. Just because there are failed families out there and single women that probably can’t even tell you for certain who the father is, but this does not make it right to place more children into the mix unless your self centeredness overrides your concern for the child.

jade (the other one) says:

03:03pm | 21/09/11

@Harry, so you concede the point about simply sterilising the population pre-marriage? It’s possible - vasectomies can be reversed rather easily.

It is the only surefire way to prevent children from being brought deliberately into what you perceive as abuse.

Robert says:

03:06pm | 21/09/11

@ Richard and Ted.

I wonder if Keasher from Mount Druitt would rather have been raised by adoptive gay parents or, I don’t know, have been bashed to death and dumped in the bush by her own mother and her current boyfriend.

At least she had the balance of a male and female influence on her life. She mush have been really lucky.

Paul says:

06:19am | 22/09/11

If people are SO against same-sex marriage, why do they keep having gay babies!

Greg says:

08:42am | 22/09/11

Robert, such a stupid input. Try grow a brain before you take a rare case and back it out as the norm, to justify putting children in a situation that has been continually proven to damage them.

Timmy says:

09:36am | 21/09/11

If my brother and my sister love each other very mush why not let them marry?

By the way, the image is American ....

Chris says:

09:55am | 21/09/11

Life is short so it is time for the lesbians and gays to stop trying to continue their degradation of society’s principles and do their biologically abnormal acts in private.

fml says:

10:22am | 21/09/11

Chris,

I feel the same way about the church and its followers, keep it indoors please!

iansand says:

10:33am | 21/09/11

Chris - I have seen very few gay people “doing their ... acts” in public (apart from around Oxford St).  I suspect they share your desire that they be allowed to do those acts in private unbothered by people like you.

PJ says:

11:01am | 21/09/11

um Timmy it’s not the same thing at all, for starters people who are biologically related cannot get married for very good reasons, it’s creepy for one

Timmy says:

12:13pm | 21/09/11

“it’s creepy for one”

PJ, precisely what they use to say about homosexuality.

I am merely noting that the “two people who love each other very much should be able to get married” argument applies equally to homosexual marriage and incestuous marriage. If it is valid for gay people to use that argument then it is valid for other situations as well.

egg says:

01:44pm | 22/09/11

@timmy, you’re right, this is a slippery slope… quick, ban straight marriage, lest they drag us further into the pit of terror!

marley says:

10:21am | 21/09/11

Bah humbug indeed.  When we got married, both my partner and I were past the age of having children.  It was all about love.  Still is, as a matter of fact.

Marriage in many societies started out as a matter of property rights.  It was also about children, but mainly in relation to property.  It is still pretty much that way in a lot of the world,  Marriage in our society, however, has evolved to represent a lot of things - children, love, property.  I don’t see any particular reason why it can’t continue to evolve.

MarkS says:

10:38am | 21/09/11

@Marley
And I am saying that marriage evolved in a foolish manner in our society. So I do see a particular reason to stop it continuing to evolve in an even more foolish manner.

Way too much Mills & Boon, not enough duty, sacrifice & honour.

Lauren says:

10:45am | 21/09/11

You can have children without being married, y’know…

James1 says:

03:06pm | 21/09/11

Now I have this image of MarkS gritting his teeth while getting down to business.  “Close your eyes and think of England, darling.”

Speaking for myself, I find that my love for my wife is what holds our marriage together and gives it real strength - oddly enough, we are just as much in love now as we were when we met at 17.  The sacrifice, duty and honour is one aspect, sure.  But where is marriage without love?  That is like life without happiness.

Gary says:

10:44am | 21/09/11

And women are not treated as property in a marriage unless you are one of those irrational sexist pigs that hate men and in your mind will twist everything to support your insane view..

Aaron says:

02:53pm | 21/09/11

HAHA!!! So true Gary, So true.

Irate Goldfish says:

12:24am | 23/09/11

Uh, Gary, Jadelaide said “rooted in”. As in, it once was. And they’re right. At its inception, marriage was about property rights. Women were regarded as a man’s “property” in most societies.

PJ says:

11:04am | 21/09/11

exactly, you can have civil unions, have one of them and call each other wife or husband, really what’s in a name? those that get married via celebrant in my opion aren’t ‘married’ because it wasn’t in a church done by a priest or reverand, and I’m not religious i just don’t see the point in marriage

Voxpop says:

01:55pm | 21/09/11

So PJ do you think that a person wasn’t born unless they were baptised or christened?  Or they aren’t dead if there was’t a religious funeral?  The government registers birth, deaths and marriages and doesn’t care if they were involved with a religious observance - it is a legal contract.  Being married by a celebrant carries exactly the same legal weight as being married by a priest .
Too much weight is given to religious groups in this debate - we are a secular country.  People following their chosen religion are free to follow the rules of their religion but don’t tell the rest of the population they have to conform to them - no-one wants a a theistic dictatorship in this country.

Aaron says:

03:06pm | 21/09/11

I thought an interesting idea was to not include same sex couples in ‘marriage’ according to definition by the state, but to remove ‘marriage’ by the state in favour of ‘civil union’ for all. To then hold a ‘christian marriage’ has the same legal and social implications as any other union, just has significance based on the community of which you’re a part. (Oh, and I only used ‘christian marriage’ based on christian being the dominant religion in australia and the opposition from the ACL)

kate says:

03:48pm | 21/09/11

@Aaron: “Why not remove ‘marriage’ by the state in favour of ‘civil union’ for all. To then hold a ‘christian marriage’ has the same legal and social implications as any other union, just has significance based on the community of which you’re a part.”

Alternatively, why not leave “marriage” to its true mean of a secular, legal contract, and call religious ceremonies “civil unions” if churches really can’t cope with sharing the word marriage. 

They’re in the minority after all -  according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in 2009: 66.9% of marriages were performed by civil celebrants; the Catholic church performed 11% of marriage ceremonies, and the Anglican church performed fewer than 6%. 

Civil marriages have outnumbered religious ceremonies in Australia since 1999 when 51.3% of all marriages were performed by civil celebrants.

Why should religions, with such little relevance to the lives of the great majority of people, have the veto over who gets to call themselves married?

Marriage is a secular, legal contract between two adults. If religions wish to perform a ceremony associated with the making of that contract, they can go right ahead, but it is essentially legally meaningless.

kate says:

04:26pm | 21/09/11

Oops, of course I meant ‘.. and call religious ceremonies “religious unions” if churches really can’t cope .. ’

PJ says:

11:07am | 21/09/11

don’t knock anal sex until you’ve tried it, i believe there is a spectacular pleasure gland for men located only via the anus so you guys are missing out, don’t need to be gay to have anal sex, us hetero girls love it too (some of us anyway)

and who says being homosexual is a choice, given the option who would choose to be riddiculed and bullied for who they are? why would you pick the most difficult road?

Aaron says:

03:13pm | 21/09/11

Why is everyone so black or white on homosexuality? It seems to be people are either sure it’s a choice, or sure it’s genetic. I don’t believe it’s either (Actually, it could be that some people’s genes give them a hormone balance that would cause them to prefer the same sex, but I don’t that’s the majority of homosexuals). My view is that it’s a result of input from childhood. I know a guy who was abandoned by his dad, and his step father was very abusive, and by his testimony, he craved affection from males that he never got at home, so you can understand where it came from. I also believe that anyone can change should they desperately want it. Whether they should be required is another matter, but if someone does want to change, it’s my belief that they can.

Lukas says:

05:05pm | 21/09/11

@Aaron.

Eh WHAT?
I wasn’t abused. Had a wonderful childhood. My father was always around. I had what could only be seen as the “perfect childhood”. Loving care, but discipline, morals, right and wrong. Yet low and behold I turned out Gay! Oh, my father must have raped me. Yes, that’s it. Of course. Either that or I chose to be gay. You know, why do people form opinions when you have not experienced it. And I don’t think I could change. It’s not a matter of thinking “oh I think I’ll have sex with men/women this week”. You can’t help who you are attracted to. Just like I’d say to you that you cannot help it that you aren’t attracted to men. If people just flipped the situation they would realise how hurtful and unjust their statements are. I will forgive you for thinking these things because without really sitting down and discussing it with a homosexual individual you cannot really get the full story. It’s not your fault you think the way you do, and I would say you came at it from at least an intelligent point of view. But I know, personally in my case, that what you have said is entirely not the case. So in future please think about the other side of the picture. Flip it around. Could you change yourself to like men? No. Probably not. Can I change myself to like women? No. I can’t.

Conclusion: Father was there, good provider, perfect family life. We had our issues, but everyone does. We all love each other. No rapeage (as sadly you would hope I’m sure. Of course, as you said all gays either have been raped or deserve to be. Just kidding, but often that’s what it sounds like people are suggesting.)

Thanks for reading this, and I hope that I can change a few minds. I’m not out here to hurt anyone. I just want my rights just like anyone else.

trixie melodian says:

01:38pm | 21/09/11

I don’t understand your appalling grammar and spelling.

Aaron says:

03:21pm | 21/09/11

Um, trixie, Nafe’s spelling and grammar is actually quite good. I can understand having a little trouble with the concept though. From what I see it’s saying that gay people have the same marriage rights, in that a gay man can marry a gay woman, but a gay man can’t marry another man any more than a straight man can marry another man. It’s actually true.

Nafe, the problem witht that idea is that if we increase the scope of marriage to include same sex couples then that still does not discriminate against anyone. Two men could get married for the legal advantages, even if they don’t love each other. An example from television would be Boston Legal where Denny and Alan get married so that Alan can inherit Denny’s fortune without loosing a bunch of it to the government if Denny were to just name Alan in the will.

Cynical, but not completely cynical says:

11:18am | 21/09/11

can you explain who they are the ‘children of’ if their father has a sex change to become a woman, does it somehow cancel out the parental genes or nullify the marriage? 

I grew up with a stepfather, he didn’t call me his step child, he called me his child yet he wasn’t genetically related to me.

kate says:

02:31pm | 21/09/11

You are wrong on so many levels.  My partner & I have a daughter, and she is the “child of” both of us:

- socially & culturally:  we are her parents on school records, medical records, passports and bus pass applications.  All our friends and family call her our daughter, my brother’s kids are her cousins, my partner’s mother is her grandmother.  We’re her parents.

- legally: we both appear on her birth certificate as her mother, we have legal responsibility for her care and welfare, we have Family Court orders confirming our legal parental status

and most importantly

- psychologically:  we are her parents because SHE knows us as her parents.  We’re the ones she relies on, loves and looks up to.  We’re the ones who tuck her into bed and help her with her homework.  We’re the ones who changed her nappy and kissed her better and set the boundaries and taught her to be the delightful and well adjusted child (who me, biased?).  She knows the circumstances of her birth, she knows who her donor is, she knows how biology works, and she knows who her parents are - her mums.  It’s really not that difficult to grasp - all her friends can cope with the concept, why can’t you?

Sure, she’s biologically only the “child of” one of us.  But that’s just one aspect of it, and by no means the most important.  Who are you to say biology is the only defining feature of parenthood, when there is so much more to it than that?

egg says:

04:24pm | 21/09/11

gratuitous adviser, so people who adopt aren’t parents either, right? or step-parents, they have no children, clearly.

your argument is ridiculous, is what i’m saying. try answering the question asked, rather than nit-picking the language used, and you might become slightly more interesting.

Margaret Gray says:

04:53pm | 21/09/11

“...she knows who her donor is…”

Such a charming turn of phrase.

And when she reaches the soul-searching age where she really wants to know who she really is…will her “two mums” be ready for that conversation?

And what happens if you and your partner split? 

Who gets custody?

More importantly, what are you teaching her about men?

Is it a lesbians world view?

Gratuitous Adviser says:

07:36pm | 21/09/11

I concede and withdraw the “the children of” statement as, of course, it can be used with pride by anyone that brings up children, including a male and a female I hope.  My beef is the use of the word “marriage” for any pair of individuals other than a male and female.  Call me normal and part of the silent majority.
By the by:  I am not sure why the Tasmanian Labor Government stuck their neck out at this time with a vote to support gay marriage, because marriage is a Commonwealth power.  I guess it is tokenism and the continuation of stupid Labor Governments systematically self-destructing and wow, look who is over the hill.

Shane From Melbourne says:

12:19pm | 21/09/11

That a$$#$% John Howard put the fix in with the Marriage Amendment Act 2004. As to whether the Tasmanian legislation would be valid if it conflicts with Commonwealth legislation, that’s for the High Court to determine.

michael j says:

10:55am | 21/09/11

indeed , did not one of Rome’s Caesar, get himself hitched to his horse ,,
beastliness is one thing ,but Mother n Son,i’ll leave that one alone,,

PJ says:

11:09am | 21/09/11

for one it’s creepy and for another there is this whole thing about degrees of seperation that make it illegal for good reason,you’re comparing apples and oranges

jade (the other one) says:

12:55pm | 21/09/11

L. You are deliberately twisting this argument in a disgusting way.

The reason that we do not allow brothers and sisters to marry is due to the profound risk of birth defects and narrowing of the gene pool.

The reason we do not allow parents and children to marry is partly for this reason, and partly due to the potential for abuse due to the differential in power relationships.

There are no such valid parallel arguments to be made regarding gay marriage.

Aaron says:

03:31pm | 21/09/11

jade, I’d disagree. You’re augument is “That’s not going to happen because even if they consent, their children might be deformed.” What if they have children by donor? The way homosexual couples do? It actually is a valid concern. People say homosexuality has been around for ages, and it’s true, but in civilisation where ever it’s become acceptable, these other things follow.

michael j says:

05:42pm | 21/09/11

@Jade-the reasoning of birth defects stopping close relations or marriage to same no longer stand because of modern contraception , sterilisation techniques,and the magic of gene therapy ,makes those old rules obsolete,,where are we going when nobody knows the way
@Aaron-i doubt anyone could dispute that homosexuality hasn’t been around since day dot but i do believe it to be a matter of choice ,or maybe a weakness to control ones desire for what they perceive to be
pleasure , certainly i believe that is what Aristotle meant when he lectured Alexander on the subject,,,,

M B Andrews says:

10:21pm | 22/09/11

Yes, and why stop there?

Why, a young lady in the Netherlands decided to marry herself in 2006. Surely, in a free society we should allow that.

(Nope, not making it up, see: http://artandperception.com/2006/12/wedded-to-art-jennifer-hoes-the-woman-who-married-herself.html )

Another Chris says:

01:08pm | 23/09/11

Interesting how this sub-thread quickly ends.
No one has an answer for this one by the looks of it.
As soon as we head down the “Two people that love each other” route..the water muddies.
It’s not about twisting the argument and calling it disgusting because where someone draws the line (Jade), another doesn’t. Correct me if I’m wrong but pro LGBT marriage folks have coined this as “Progression” ...letting two People Marry if they love each other. Now following this logic, what some of us would would call the degradation of the moral fabric in society,  I.e the naturally occurring family unit, others call “progression” ... Confused, I am.

Jackie says:

10:30am | 21/09/11

Dementer, I think the author is suggesting that allowing gay marriage gets people excited about marriage again. I imagine the joy & enthusisiam with which Scandinavian gay couples take to marriage has encouraged more hetrosexual couples to re-think the institution.

Kaye says:

11:47am | 21/09/11

A lot of anti-gay marriage-ers say things like gay marriage will destroy hetero marriage and I assume that the author is stating that obviously this isn’t the case, as shown in Scandinavian countries etc.

Al.B says:

10:18am | 21/09/11

well we are good for the environment lol ... much easier to control population if we have a Lesbian Breeding Program (LBP) run things. I’m happy to contribute a cups worth every now and then to fertilise the eggs

amy says:

10:21am | 21/09/11

sorry but this seems like somthing youve just made up in your own head

though I could say the same about thease “moral crusaders”

Zaf says:

10:22am | 21/09/11

[The Gay lobby is 1000% self serving.]

Duh! That’s the point of a lobby.

fml says:

10:24am | 21/09/11

Looks like you got a bag cheezels on your shoulder mate.

Al.B says:

11:09am | 21/09/11

hey i think i might be on a winner with this controlled population thing ... it should please the ACL ... less unplanned pregnancies = less abortions = happy pro-lifers! Whaddaya reckon Jim Wallace? I think thats called “finding common ground” ???

Brisbane Bryn says:

12:05pm | 21/09/11

The gay lobby being 1000% self serving…..... of course they they are. did you think the are hear to represent christians or families.

andye says:

04:06pm | 21/09/11

@Dan the breeder - “Gay people seem to collect chips on their shoulder easier than “straights”

I think you are selling yourself short, Dan. You appear to have a massive chip on your shoulder.

Robert says:

03:30pm | 21/09/11

They died to support our way of life. If that means we have moved on as a society where we are at a point of accepting same sex marriage, instead of being worked to death by our Teutonic overlords, I think they would be proud.

I’m sure they didn’t die for single parent payments and middle class welfare either. Both of which would have been unimaginable at the turn of the century so it is a pretty pointless argument.

andye says:

01:29pm | 21/09/11

@Phil - Oh, poor Phil! The worst part of this is that people you don’t support do not like you?

How tragic.

fml says:

03:10pm | 21/09/11

Which county?

I think legalised discrimination is a REAL issue, so do many other people.

Robert says:

03:36pm | 21/09/11

I totally agree and the sooner the government stops pandering to the noisy minority religious right and pass the legislation the better.

Why they are so hell bent on stopping laws that will help protect a small percentage of the population and their families while having no adverse affect on anyone else is beyond comprehention

Matt says:

12:28pm | 22/09/11

Yeah, because every problem society faces is very simple and will just wait for us to get around to it.  Good one Phil.

PJ says:

11:33am | 21/09/11

Um actually women are choosing to be single parents all the time, there’s even a website solo mums by choice or which I will be joining shortly

amy says:

11:57am | 21/09/11

good riddance I say! its time we outgrew religion!

I mean lets face it, your just upset that the christains can tell us what to do anymore, your scenario is rather far fetched and unlikley…but it isnt fun when YOUR the one being picked on is it?

Gords says:

12:59pm | 21/09/11

@ PJ, Well, choosing to raise a child without a father is far from ideal…..but understandable when looking at the moral quality of todays males LOL.

@ Amy, that’s cool if you feel that way but shows you’re not on about equality but silencing those that disagree with you.

At any rate, going forward, it seems a libertarian society (wherein the state has no role in marriage, religion or any social matter) is the only way all groups will be satisfied - gays can do whatever they like and Christians, Muslims, etc. can do whatever they like. Each group will be independent of the other groups. A return to tribalism if you will.

Rebecca says:

01:26pm | 21/09/11

No one chooses to be a single parent? Rubbish. Google Janet Merewether. In this day and age I think single parent by choice is a noble and brave choice. Just because there is no father in the picture, doesn’t mean that you can’t make a huge point of suitable male role models.

andye says:

01:47pm | 21/09/11

@Gords - Your pastor story stinks to high hell. The only references I can find are extremist conservative echo-chambers like Free Republic. I don’t buy it. Propaganda that is eaten up by those who want to believe it.

Your story about the victorian group is a bit misleading as well. The gay group tried to book a camp site with a business run by the church. The business refused because the group was a gay group - specifically one that deals with youth suicide. The reason this was upheld was because it was a BUSINESS. This was the argument in court.

PJ says:

02:03pm | 21/09/11

@Gords, exactly right my friend, the moral qualities of the men I have dated are deplorable, if they’re not asking me to mms them pics of my tits, they’re asking for BJ’s in the car park before we’ve even met…..ah I’m sorry when did decency and respect go out the window? I am 30 and have been dating since 17 and all I have found are guys like this. not to say there aren’t perfectly lovely men in this world of my generation but the evidence I have from my experience is that, no they’re no longer here and that is sad, but I will still be able to have a child as I desperately want to be a mother, I have so much love inside me and really the cats don’t give the same satisfaction….although I can leave them alone for hours on end haha

Margaret Gray says:

02:14pm | 21/09/11

“...Just because there is no father in the picture, doesn’t mean that you can’t make a huge point of suitable male role models…”

How terribly presumptuous of you to assume your male friends should have to share the emotional burden of your life choices.

The expectation they will neatly provide the requisite “male influence” is startlingly selfish and betrays a deep lack of understanding of early childhood development.

Why would anyone volunteer to be the “suitable male role model” with yours and another man’s child simply because they are proximal to you?

You don’t just clock-on and clock-off with children.

A revolving door of mummy’s Fakebook ‘friends’, local shopkeepers and blokey workmates is hardly conducive to the emotional consistancy and stability all children crave.

I pity the child without a real father.

PJ says:

02:30pm | 21/09/11

@Margaret - who says it will be a friend or boyfriend? my father will be a great male role model as with my cousin, I have male relatives who will be a good influence, why are you bagging out step fathers? just because the male in question isn’t blood related doesn’t mean he isn’t a ‘real’ father

Gords says:

02:45pm | 21/09/11

@ Andye

I realise no one wants to believe they’re limiting the freedom of others but these things are happening, whether they destroy certain meme’s or not….there’s tonnes more out there as well, like the Mormon guy who was encouraged to resign as US Olympic Chef De Mission because he opposed SS marriage - when Christians are losing jobs in the public realm because of their beliefs, things have gotten too extreme. If private businesses want to discriminate against religions then that’s their choice I suppose, but public organisations probably shouldn’t do it.

Can’t we let Christians be Christians and gays be gays. Why does it have to be a zero-sum game?

David says:

04:09pm | 21/09/11

@Gords,

I haven’t heard of any Christians losing their jobs because of their religion. Gay people on the other hand losing their jobs because of their sexuality…

And no the private sector (or the public sector for that matter) can not choose to discriminate against a person on the basis of their religion. It is unlawful.

andye says:

04:23pm | 21/09/11

@Gords - You keep bringing up US examples. Try being an Atheist in some parts of the USA. You would suffer significant discrimination.

Does this make discriminating against Christians ok? Well, no. I think everyone should be free to practice their religion as they see fit -  as long as it doesn’t interfere with anyone else.

For example, in your Victorian example, the church itself should be able to do as it wishes. It can refuse to allow gays or perform gay marriages. Whatever it wants to do. Any business it owns, however? This should be subject to the same secular rules as everyone else.

The christian lobbies at the moment seem to be crying discrimination… because they aren’t allowed to discriminate. This is a double edged sword they are holding.

Its like when I see demands for “equal time” in schools and universities for alternate theories like Intelligent Design. If they want “equal time” then they had better start inviting some scientists to church to put forward alternate theories whenever they preach genesis.

Or they could just accept that church is for one thing and science class is for another.

CT says:

11:28am | 21/09/11

I seem to have avoided the very high risk of becoming heterosexual after being raised by heterosexual parents. How perplexing.

James1 says:

12:21pm | 21/09/11

If you feel that your upbringing can change your sexual orientation, then clearly you yourself are either gay or bisexual.  A heterosexual or homosexual has no choice in what they find attractive - it is either one or the other, and no amount of conditioning can change this.  The very fact that you think there is an element of choice in the matter shows that you consider yourself capable of exercising that choice.  Which in turn indicates that you are bisexual.

David says:

12:57pm | 21/09/11

@Ray,

Gay parents do not make gay kids.

And don’t you think the blame for kids getting teased about having gay parents lies with anti gay proponents like yourself and not with the kids themselves or their parents.

freewoman says:

01:41pm | 21/09/11

What’s a “normal” upbringing? What’s normal to you might not be to others…

They’ll only be teased for having same-sex parents if people like you teach your children to be bigoted homophobes….

and lastly, what’s wrong with being gay? why do you refer to “risk”?

neo says:

04:28pm | 21/09/11

Well, we can argue about what ought to and what ought not to happen all day long, but the reality of life is that kids who have two dads will be ridiculed to no end. To that kid, it doesn’t really matter whose fault it is, all they are concerned with is that their life is being made horrible.

kate says:

04:41pm | 21/09/11

At my daughter’s school, two out of the 10 prefects, including the boy captain, are from gay families.    You get to be prefect by: (a) self-nominating or being nominated (b) making a speech and a poster to convince your peers (c) not be vetoed by the teachers (for specified disciplinary issues and (d) be voted in by the school population.

This means the prefects are by definition articulate, confident, popular and respected by both teachers and students. 

How does this fit with your “poor bullied child” scenario?

Do you actually know any children from gay families?

freewoman says:

04:51pm | 21/09/11

@ neo - so true. For the same reason, we’d better ban anyone with red hair from breeding, anyone from an Asian background (like it or not, there are racists out there, and we don’t want Asian kids being bullied at school by their kids) etc etc. They can’t help being red headed or Asian, but they can be stopped from procreating, in case their kids get teased.

David says:

04:56pm | 21/09/11

@neo,

Yes kids who have two dads will be ridiculed. That’s why the likes of Jim Wallace and his Christian hate group need to realise the harm they are causing those kids and shut the fuck up.

The ACL and their Christian followers will claim that they are abhorred by the harassment of children in the school yard. But the fact is that when kids hear their mum and dad talk about how gay marriage is a threat to the family and how gay sex makes jesus cry, those kids feel justified in attacking the gay and lesbian kids they encounter in schools. Parents don’t have to explicitly encourage their children to harass gay kids, the encouragement is implicit.

andye says:

05:05pm | 21/09/11

@neo - EXACTLY the same circular logic often used to dissuade people from interracial relationships. Yet nowadays, it isn’t really a big deal. More than half the babies of my friends from the last few years are interracial.

It is possible that they might face some kind of discrimination at some stage, but I wouldn’t use that as an argument that their parents should never have gotten together or had children.

Injustice and intolerance are things I believe are wrong, and I will fight them.  What kind of world would we live in if everyone shaped their lives to avoid the ire of bigots? Luckily, many of us have a hell of a lot more gumption than you, neo.

neo says:

07:05pm | 21/09/11

Yeah, good points all around. Thing is, people want to procreate, to have a little part of them live on, their own flesh and blood that came from within them, and even if the couple is interracial, they still have that desire, they want to continue their genetic line, it’s such a deep biological inner desire for humans, you can’t deny a man and a woman of different nationalities the chance to procreate just because their child will be mixed race. Bit different if you adopt a kid innit.

freewoman says:

01:44pm | 21/09/11

That’s an important point, Eve, that the anti-gay crowd often ignore - gay and lesbian issues don’t just affect us, but our straight families, friends etc! Your daughter is lucky to have you and your husband on side : )

Dan the Breeder says:

04:19pm | 21/09/11

Hi Eve, and if both of your daughters were straight, would you even be in the Gay lobby ?. (be honest)

freewoman says:

04:54pm | 21/09/11

@ Dan the Breeder - what’s your point?? Eve cares about her daughter’s welfare…this proves some sort of point how exactly?

Also, people are capable of having empathy for others even if they don’t experience something themselves (well, most people anyway….). Like white people in the anti-slavery movment a century or so ago, for example….

David says:

10:32am | 22/09/11

Hi Dan the Breeder

If you were gay, would you be lobbying against gay marriage? (Be Honest)

Lobby groups are usually made up of people that are somehow affected by what they are lobbying about.

LC says:

01:40pm | 21/09/11

Another top post by Zeta. Hats off to you sir.

But you left out a few things:
- He actively campaigns against terminally ill people having the right to end their life on their terms.
- He actively campaigns against alterations to the way videogames are rated in order to ensure that adult content are left for adults only, in the name of protecting children, by using the current system which he claims does not work.
- He demands all children be religiously indocrinated in public schools according to the cirriculum.
- And most importantly, he wishes to supress us all with his internet filter, which is backed by federal Labor.

Comparing Wallace and the ACL to “yellow hyena ass pus” is TAME compared to what ‘d say if I could express myself freely here.

Fiddler says:

03:16pm | 21/09/11

he didn’t “quit the SAS” he was the Commanding Officer before being promoted to higher rank and retired from the Army, so yeah fail

Dan the Breeder says:

04:24pm | 21/09/11

It is a well worded insult BUT You seem to know an awful lot about the anal glands of Hyenas….. just saying.

egg says:

05:53pm | 21/09/11

@zeta, i think my happiness gland just spilled multi-coloured goodness all over my keyboard. that, however, won’t stop me from typing thanks, as this is one of the funniest and most logical posts i’ve ever read on the punch!

“colony of sentient anal glands” indeed… aah, it tickles me.

shinydonkey says:

01:36pm | 22/09/11

I love you Zeta

freewoman says:

01:51pm | 21/09/11

Gosh - I was with you until you mentioned “crazy short-haired Leftie nut” - a little disrespectful don’t you think?? Some women like that (I assume it was a dig at women anyway) have fought hard for decades seeking to improve things for same-sex attracted people, and are also “real people”....you might want to try being a little less bigoted? Surely we get enough crap from homophobes without attacking each other?

fml says:

03:49pm | 21/09/11

Well you are never going to be allowed to get married if you continue to vote liberal, its like fucking for the right to be called a virgin. :p

CT says:

04:43pm | 21/09/11

I do apologise for the disrespectful tone. I’m simply demonstrating that we’re not one and the same. I was attempting to use terms of reference that people could recognise. I’m not saying I believe in that perception of the gay community (that of lesbians being a particular way, gay men being a particular way, so on and so forth). Just that people should attempt to broaden that perception. Upon rereading it, I could have worded it a lot better. My apologies again.

As for the matter of voting Liberal, it’s a personal political choice. It has much to do with the fact that my sexuality does not define every aspect of my being, and that includes the political framework I believe is best suited for running a country. I’m no less a gay woman or a Liberal voter for being either. I hope that makes sense.

fml says:

05:25pm | 21/09/11

CT,

I apologise, i was talking in jest. I know that your voting preference has no bearing on your sexuality, and it would be abhorrent for anyone to suggest otherwise, but to me it seems like a contradiction, in terms of wanting Gay Marriage, yet voting for the party that is in bed with the ACL and would never allow it. I find it perplexing, but, fair play to you.

Anna C says:

11:47am | 21/09/11

I agree Anubis, and that’s why I think we should hold a referendum at the next election to sort it out. If the gay lobby is so convinced that gay- marriage has wide spread community support then they will have nothing to fear by my proposal. Conversely, if a majority of the population votes against gay-marriage then I would expect the gay lobby to accept the results and shut up about the whole issue.  Let the people decide.

fml says:

12:30pm | 21/09/11

It shouldnt have to go to a referendum, marriage is a fundamental human right. Why should you or anyone else for that matter be allowed to decide who is allowed to get married and who shouldnt?

PJ says:

12:43pm | 21/09/11

@Anna and none of these ‘conscience’ (did I spell that right?) amendments, in USA they had a vote and people voted against gay marriage in all the states, they had another vote, again the people said no. the government had implemented it anyway conscience decision or something. lets have a vote and if the answer is no, Australia doesn’t want gay marriage then they can stop lobbying for it and take it gracefully

Tim says:

01:02pm | 21/09/11

fml,
“Why should you or anyone else for that matter be allowed to decide who is allowed to get married and who shouldnt? “

I take it you’re a big supporter of incestuous and polygamous marriages then. Good for you.

Joel B1 says:

01:10pm | 21/09/11

“marriage is a fundamental human right”

What are those “fundamental human rights”? Who decides what they are? You?

Modern morality, like it or not, is mostly based on religious notions. Whether Hindu, Islamic, Judaic or Christian.

post-modernism sucks

jade (the other one) says:

01:27pm | 21/09/11

@Tim, should the Islamic community just sit back and take it if the majority deems that their marriages are no longer valid? How about if the majority decides that interracial marriage should no longer be acceptable? Should mixed race couples simply accept that?

Anna C says:

01:39pm | 21/09/11

fml, what’s wrong with the people of Australia deciding what they want? What, don’t you like living in a democracy? How democratic is it to impose gay-marriage on our society before it is ready for it? Doesn’t sound too democratic to me.

fml says:

01:44pm | 21/09/11

Tim,

“I take it you’re a big supporter of incestuous and polygamous marriages then. Good for you.” In that case why shouldnt all marriages be banned? but if you want to get married to your sister fair play to you, i couldnt care less, but i dont hold myself or my beliefs in high esteem enough to prevent others freedoms. I would much rather ban all religion. Religion causes much more division and unrest than two males being married. Ban religion now, you obviously use it to hold yourself in higher esteem than your peers instead of using it as a guide to morality.

Joel,

“What are those “fundamental human rights”? Who decides what they are? You?” No, funnily enough it was around before me, but yes its a human right to have a union, and call it a marriage. Now, explain to me what gives you the right, ethically or morally to tell people they cant marry?

Marriage means union, and no, the concept of marriage was around much longer before any of those religions you have mentioned, the religious stole it and claimed it for themselves, now they have the audacity to say who can and cannot get married. Dont give them your blessing fine, but prevent them from calling it a marriage is pious crap.

“Modern morality, like it or not, is mostly based on religious notions. Whether Hindu, Islamic, Judaic or Christian.” Sanctimonious crap, Ethics predates religion, i dont like it, because it isnt true.

fml says:

01:56pm | 21/09/11

AnnaC,

Because marriage is a personal right, denying a personal right to someone is not democratic, even if you vote for it.

So what if the majority of the people in this country said, Black people couldnt marry, or red heads are not allowed to reproduce, or stop women from using the internet, we have a referendum and the laws are passed, how the hell is that democratic?

Voting to limit peoples freedom is tyranny not democracy.

James1 says:

02:09pm | 21/09/11

While I agree in principle Anna, that is a concept fraught with potential difficulties.  If we were to simply put every question that is contested to a referendum (which we couldn’t because in Australia referenda only relate to changes to the constitution - plebiscite is a better word), what would stop people voting to double their wages and halve their taxes?  Or vote to remove everyone not born in the country?  Or to restrict voting rights to men?  In this conception of democracy, there would be a very thin line between democracy and mob rule.

If I trusted the average person to understand that the pursuit of their own interest sometimes requires sacrifice, I would support such a system.  But human nature being what it is…

Tim says:

02:13pm | 21/09/11

fml,
can you point to where I said that I support incestuous or polygamous marriages? Or that I’m religious?  No? Didn’t think so.
And you want to ban religion now? Apparently you believe in personal freedom but only when it suits you. Why am I not surprised you’re a hypocrite.

I personally think that the marriage act should be repealed and we should enact a civil union bill. Anyone and everyone would be able to legally register any relationship under this bill.
Religious organisations would continue to offer whatever sacrements they wanted to. These would not be recognised by law.

fml says:

02:37pm | 21/09/11

Tim,

I was not referring to you personally, but “you” in context of everyone that wants to marry incestuously or have multiple wives, its got nowt to do with you. If its easier for you to understand substitute the word “you” for “they”. No you didnt say you were religious, but its the religious that are mainly against the term gay marriage. You do know it is possible to argue a point that is outside yourself? You dont have to be religious for me to argue the point of religion with you.

“Why am I not surprised you’re a hypocrite.” Sarcasm my friend, look it up. To the uninformed sarcasm may look like hypocrisy. The comment is apt in the context i used it. The religious are more than happy to prevent other peoples freedom, but once they get attacked they are the loudest and quickest to complain, there i think is the hypocrisy you are looking for.

“Apparently you believe in personal freedom but only when it suits you” this can be explained by the paragraph above and the use of sarcasm.

“I personally think that the marriage act should be repealed and we should enact a civil union bill.” why not just call it a marriage?

kate says:

02:47pm | 21/09/11

“Factual findings”:

- June 2007, Galaxy - 57% supported same-sex marriage with 37% opposed and 6% undecided.

- June 2009, Galaxy - 60% supported the recognition of same-sex marriage, with 36% opposed and 4% undecided.

- October 2010, Galaxy - 62% supported the recognition of same-sex marriage, with 33% opposed and 5% undecided.

- July 2011 Roy Morgan - 68% of Australians support same-sex marriage; 78% classify marriage as a ‘necessary’ institution, with 22% opposing

Anna C says:

03:04pm | 21/09/11

@ James1

I’m not advocating that we put all things up for a referendum, just really important issues that have the potential to change our society. Allowing same sex marriage is a huge step and we would be turning our back on thousands of years of history and social mores.  I’m not saying that we shouldn’t allow it, but I think the Australian people should be the ones to decide.

Tim says:

03:11pm | 21/09/11

fml,
Oh of course, you = they. How silly of me.
Sarcasm——> you’re doing it wrong.

I wouldn’t call a civil union a marriage because it isn’t one.
Marriage implies more than a civil contract which this won’t be. It’s purely a legal device that people can freely enter into for whatever purpose they want.
The government and the law should not try to involve itself in things like love.

James1 says:

03:43pm | 21/09/11

Fair call Anna.  I’m just wary of citizen intiated referenda more generally.  Any country that goes down such a path needs to be careful about how they do it.

Personally, I’m not really convinced that gay marriage will change anything, and my arguments on any plebiscite related to it stem from this lack of conviction.  Sure, if it is going to materially affect people, call a vote.  But unless there are millions of gay men and women currently in heterosexual marriages that are just waiting for gay marriage to be legalised to abandon their current lifestyles, I don’t see it having much effect.  It certainly won’t affect my marriage, and I find the non-Biblical based arguments a little hard to follow and illogical, especially considering they are being made by people who claim to be heterosexual, and will in no way be affected.

kate says:

03:50pm | 21/09/11

“Sure, if it is going to materially affect people, call a vote.”

That would be a vote among gay people who want to get married, seeing as they are the only people materially affected.

AdamC says:

04:03pm | 21/09/11

James1 and Anna C, the gay marriage issue should be decided by our elected representatives in the parliament. Why should it go to a referendum? It doesn’t involve any constitutional change or anything. We elect representatives and leaders to take decisions and implement policy. That is their job.

Having said that, if I were an anti-gay marriage activist, I would be all for the referendum path. How often do any of them get up?

fml says:

02:51pm | 21/09/11

Well the bible says slavery is ok, and we dont want to offend god now do we.

Aaron says:

06:48pm | 21/09/11

fml, the bible does not say that slavery is ok. Maybe you should actually read some of it before attacking it.

Irate Goldfish says:

12:46am | 23/09/11

Aaron: But it does say you get to stone your new wife if you find out she’s not a virgin!

““But if ... evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones…” (Deuteronomy 22:20,21)”

Actually, there are many mentions of “slavery is a-OK”. Check out Ephesians 6:5, Colassians 3:22 and 1 Peter 2:18 some time!

fml says:

02:50pm | 21/09/11

“Have you apologised to your parents for shitting your nappies?”

No but i thank them for cleaning up the mess.

marley says:

01:17pm | 21/09/11

@JulesG - you answered your own question.  “Marriage is and always was a choice” - but it’s one that is being denied to a segment of the population for no convincing reason that I’ve heard yet.  Some people want to get married - that may not be your particular cup of tea, but it’s theirs - so why deny them that possibility?

AdamC says:

01:29pm | 21/09/11

JulesG, activist gays want gay marriage because straight people already have it and gays don’t. It’s a bit like a solid gold toilet seat. In the abstract, you would think ‘Why on earth would I want such a tacky, costly thing?’ But if everyone on your street had one ...

It’s not entirely rational, but it’s not especially surprising, either.

E says:

02:05pm | 21/09/11

Jules, that’s the point. You have a choice. I don’t. I have three gorgeous kids who don’t understand why they’re parents can’t marry like everyone else. Until recently I wasn’t particularly pro equal marriage (certainly not anti), but when I hear peoples’ arguments against it leaves me dumbfounded and angry. Spurious notions about religion, nature, gay lobbyists, the rights of children, etc cloud what the real issue here is - and that’s equality for all Australians. That’s what the ANZACS fought for, that’s what my grandfather died in New Guinea for in WW2, that’s what a democracy is all about. Marriage is certainly not fundamental the success of a relationship - but equality is fundamental to the success of a humane and caring society.

Adrian says:

01:55pm | 21/09/11

Because no heterosexual couple has ever abused their child hey RyaN? Idiot.

Elphaba says:

01:55pm | 21/09/11

Oh, please.  Bastard acts to not discriminate on sexual preference.

freewoman says:

02:06pm | 21/09/11

My god! You’re right to be worried! We never had child abuse until gays had children!! Oh…..wait…...

Tedd says:

02:12pm | 21/09/11

one anecdote doesn’t apply to all

PJ says:

02:14pm | 21/09/11

Oh please, one case? come on, who never dressed up in their parent’s clothes, didn’t you watch that Simpsons episode?

Robert says:

04:16pm | 21/09/11

My mother has pictures of me in a lovely pink frilly number from when I was about six months old. We also photos on my older sister wearing my father’s army overalls.

You could go through any collection of family photos and will probably find similar photos.

Interesting that nowhere in the above article is it ever stated that the child felt humiliated only that he was humiliated. My question is according to who. My bet is “some concerned citizen” who was probably trolling facebook just looking to make trouble

RyaN says:

05:01pm | 21/09/11

To defend child abuse is outrageous, you people should be ashamed of yourselves.
@Adrian, this was a lesbian couple humiliating a foster boy, not a heterosexual couple.

fml says:

05:32pm | 21/09/11

RyaN,

To equate same sex marriages as child abusers, and when decent people stand up against your gross negligence displayed when you twist the argument, and equate defending the decent majority as supporting the child abusing minority is an absolute disgrace. For shame.

xar says:

08:31pm | 21/09/11

how is that child abuse? Go to any childcare centre and you’ll see boys who love wearing dress ups, the sight of a 5/6 year old boy in female clothes or as female characters is a pretty bloody normal one. They pretend to be “the mum” or a female cartoon character routinely and it is perfectly normal and age appropriate. I’ve got a pic somewhere of my own boy wearing a tutu, heels and fairy wings when he was little - you’d be laughed out of the police station if you tried to report that as child abuse!

RyaN says:

09:30am | 22/09/11

@fml: I actually did post a response but it appears that the punch people decided to censor it for some unknown reason. Perhaps its their agenda.

RyaN says:

09:32am | 22/09/11

@xar: psychological child abuse, they put the girls clothes on the boy, the boy wasn’t playing dress ups!
But defend away, just like the other people who defend psychological child abuse merely because the abusers are lesbians.

xar says:

12:57pm | 22/09/11

@Ryan - my query about whether this constitutes abuse has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the foster parents. I am just baffled that in a society where kids are made to wear hated school uniforms, ugly outfits for posed family portraits and sit on the knee of a shopping mall santa that they are often not thrilled to be near, that simply instigating a child dressing up and taking photos is deemed abusive - these kids are in the foster program so any pics of them would not have been posted publicly. Methinks you are the one who has issues with judging the clarity of matters once sexual orientation is brought in as a factor.

RyaN says:

01:53pm | 22/09/11

@xar: that is your opinion but two lesbians degrading and humiliating a six year old boy is nothing but sick.
The mere fact that the boy was removed from these two sickos is an indictment of the psychological abuse they were subjecting him to. Unsurprising considering their sexual orientation and the sex of the boy, clear intent in my opinion.

RyaN says:

04:31pm | 22/09/11

How about all unions be called just that, a union. Same sex can call it what they like after that and religious heterosexual people can call it marriage.
Everyone equal in the eyes of the law and no differences.
If the gay lobby still want to fight to call a legally recognised union a marriage then we know that the only reason for that is to attempt the destruction of the church and a flagrant attack on peoples religious beliefs (but we already know that this is what its all about isn’t it !)

kate says:

09:51am | 23/09/11

Seeing as most people don’t have religious ceremonies any more, if we really need a different word it would be simpler to continue to call civil marriages (the majority) “marriage”, as we do now, and if the churches really can’t bear to share the word with people who don’t match their narrow definition, they can use another term. 

The 10% of marriages solemnised by the Catholic church be called “Catholic unions”; the 6% of marriages solemnised by the Anglican church can be called “Anglican unions”, and so on.  For those who feel the need to further define themselves, we could have “heterosexual union” for men who are afraid their wife might be mistaken for a man, “breeding union” for those intending to have children, “barren union” to describe post-menopausal marriages; “racially pure union” for those marrying someone of the same race; “financial union” for people marrying for money; “Vegas union” for the Elvis chapel-type 5 minute marriage - the possibilities are endless. 

Alternatively, here’s an idea: let’s call all marriages “marriage”.  Religious, civil, gay, straight, black, white, fertile, infertile, old, young, rich, poor – just “marriage”.

fml says:

05:27pm | 21/09/11

You must be a madman if you want more than one wife! imagine all the shoes you would have to buy man!

More the merrier says:

06:10pm | 21/09/11

wouldn’t mind some polyandry of my own, now you mention it.

If you are speaking multiple females exclusively, you might actually mean polygyny. Polygamy is multiple partners from either gender :-D
Whatever floats your boat though.

Marriage for all who want it and can stand it. As a member of the human species I find monogamy hard to understand, but that just me I guess.

Gay, straight, bi or extreme narcissism, whatever makes you happy and fulfilled is all right by me

fizz says:

08:01pm | 21/09/11

I think you’ve hit it on the head mate. Legalise gay marriage, polygamy next, paedophilia next? Yeah good one mate

Timinane says:

08:13pm | 21/09/11

Marriage is a contract and contracts between multiple partners are tricky. Such as which contract has precedent, basically polygamy is a legal nightmare.

I think Islam tried to make it work with polygamy is allowed but you have to treat each wife equally, it’s a big failure as the wives argue among each other to be the best. I think they usually end with a dead husband and driving off in a convertible Cadillac while wearing sunglasses and taking off the hijab while you drive off a cliff.

Shane From Melbourne says:

08:56pm | 21/09/11

Actually, we already do- it’s called divorce and remarriage. But the problem with multiple wives or multiple husbands is that the property rights can get very messy (and probably already are…)

Jason Todd says:

10:28am | 22/09/11

I agree. Using the word mirage to describe a joining of two same sex individuals is merely an illusion.

marley says:

07:18am | 22/09/11

So you’re saying that Australia should base its laws and rights on those in place in Iran and Afghanistan?  Hmmm.  I don’t think you’re going to enjoy sharia all that much.

Paul says:

06:55am | 22/09/11

It’s too late. It’s already happening and YOU can’t stop it.

marley says:

07:17am | 22/09/11

It is my impression that rather a lot of marriages in Australia are not “holy unions” but are conducted by civil celebrants and have nothing to do with the Church.  I’d further say, that quite a lot of marriages conducted in Church are something less than “holy,” given the rates of marital infidelity, domestic abuse, and divorce.

kate says:

10:31am | 22/09/11

Most marriages in Australia are not ‘holy unions’ - only 34% (and falling) were conducted by any religious association.    This has been the case for more than 10 years. 

Most people don’t go to church, most people don’t get married in church.  Religion is increasingly irrelevant to most people’s lives

Al says:

10:31am | 22/09/11

“Marriage was designed to foster and promote a family with a Man and a Woman. “

HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Sorry, research your history, marriage has always been about controlling (or reducing) inheritence and property disputes. This is the same reason that Catholic priests aren’t allowed to marry.

The whole idea of marrige for love and/or family did not occur untill much later.

Paul says:

06:54am | 22/09/11

what an insult to heroic and strong women and to men who aren’t afraid to show love.

amy says:

12:10pm | 22/09/11

hey des, its 2011

Elisabeth says:

01:37pm | 22/09/11

Des, my gorgeous son is taught many things by many people - by people, malke and female, who love and respect him. Family members, teachers, friends, etc. You’re assuming that every father is a positive role model, and we know that’s simply not the case (nor every mother). I adore my dad, but what did he teach my brother? To be a sexist, alcoholic bully with no understanding of how to be in a relationship with a woman. I don’t want that for my son. I want him to learn from men who are strong, proud, happy and thoughtful human beings. Genetics doesn’t dictate that.

M B Andrews says:

10:11pm | 22/09/11

Sure, I’ll give you a good reason Dean: because it’s anti-diversity.

That’s right, while Classical marriage is pro gender-diversity (because it demands there must be one of each gender in the marriage) same-sex marriage is anti-gender-diversity (because it always excludes one member of the opposite gender).

C

Matt says:

08:18am | 23/09/11

That’s an observation, not a reason.. Explaion ‘Classical’ marriage as there is no such thing.  Do you mean the original marriage that was a contract regarding posessions - you’d like to go back to swapping goats for a wife?  Or do you mean the ‘Classical’ christian version of marriage that also implied ownership of the wife and giving dowry’s to her father? 

Pretty crap attempt MB Andrews.. And not actually a reason.  Being homosexual excludes one member of the opposite gender - that’s the whole point….