Hey Julia, civil unions are no substitute for real marriage

TChong says:

07:39am | 18/02/11

Corruption AtM ? Lets see now, is it the brown paper bag stuffed with money type corruption ?, as perfected by that Conservative icon,
Sir John Bjelke Peterson?
How many of his ministers went to gaol?
A few wasnt it?

Flexo says:

08:56am | 18/02/11

This ALP government makes those Underbelly thugs look like school yard bullies. It is corruption to the core. Look at the Royal North Shore hospital scandal at the moment.

TChong says:

09:23am | 18/02/11

Ah, Flexo, you’re a learned person.
Maybe you can help.
How many of JBPs ministers were gaoled for corruption?

XXXXMan says:

12:18pm | 18/02/11

Tchong, the answer you’re looking for is less athn Beattie/Blighs (Check it out!)

Steely Dan says:

12:59pm | 18/02/11

@ Against the Man

Do you know what ‘corruption’ actually means?  Hint: It’s not ‘doing things in a legal fashion that somebody objects to’.

Against the Man says:

01:56pm | 18/02/11

Seems the word corruption is rubbing the ALP loonies the wrong way. Ouch! The painful truth really does hurt! Maybe I’ve hit a nerve? A truth nerve? HaHa I’m loving it…...........Bye, bye NSW ALP! Enjoy screwing us over Gilltard?

john says:

09:23pm | 18/02/11

@TChong as usual your opening your trap about people you know nothing about,  for a start its SIR Joh not John.
He was well known for ‘Gerrymandering’, that’s how he managed to stay in power, the rest is just crap.
In that era corruption was for the lust of power and to control, to do great things to “show off,” to be known, to be seen, to be respected.

Its not the type of corruption for some cheap money for selfish reasons like you know it today. Its amazing how easily people fall when they are succumbed by their own lust for money, that very few people command the respect of masses of people. Obama comes to mind, maybe Bob Hawke, Margret Thatcher, we dont see much caliber of leadership that commands respect anymore.

Robert Smissen, rural SA, God's own country says:

11:28pm | 18/02/11

Sorry TChong Corruption charges were brought against Joh but never proven, ero, he wasn’t corrupt

Steely Dan says:

11:11am | 19/02/11

@ Robert Smissen

“Sorry TChong Corruption charges were brought against Joh but never proven, ero, he wasn’t corrupt”
No, that doesn’t mean he wasn’t corrupt.  He wasn’t found not guilty.  The jury was in deadlock, and the foreman, Luke Shaw, was found out to be a member of the Young Nationals.  A retrial never occurred because Joh was declared too old to stand trial again, and the key witness refused to leave Singapore for a retrial.  Joh got lucky.  Very, very lucky.

jf says:

11:29am | 20/02/11

Steely Dan

Your literal focus on the definition of corruption it not only disingenuous pedantry, it is also incorrect. Corruption can refer to things that are legal and that one objects to: for instance, I feel that both parties refusal to support gay marriage is morally corrupt. SD, you can do better than that.

On to that topic at hand, Joh was corrupt; to suggest otherwise is ridiculous. It was also over twenty years ago and during his era, a number of people close to his Government and the police force were all part of the “the joke” incluidng a number of police aligned to the police unions and the ALP. However, it factual that, during that era a not insignificant number of National Party politicians were found guilty of corruption charges as were a number of civil servants with mixed political allegiances.

It is also factual that more Government ministers from the Beatty/Bligh government have been investigated, charged and found guilty of corruption charges. There has been no suggestion that any conservative politicians or public servants were involved; it all eminated from the ALP.

PaulB says:

12:33pm | 20/02/11

Sorry Smissen, but there’s a few of us who actually remember the Joh trial and the work done by Nationals insiders to derail it.  He was charged and found neither guilty nor innocent.  A National hack on the jury ensured the collapse of the trial.  Some may call it corruption but obviously not when its the work of God’s own.  Whatever it takes huh?

Steely Dan says:

02:57pm | 20/02/11

@ jf

“Corruption can refer to things that are legal and that one objects to: for instance, I feel that both parties refusal to support gay marriage is morally corrupt.”
Then the term ‘morally corrupt’ should have been employed.  Agreed?

“It is also factual that more Government ministers from the Beatty/Bligh government have been investigated, charged and found guilty of corruption charges”
That means that the former Government ministers are guilty of corruption.  How does that make those not being investigated for corruption guilty?  And it’s also a fact that it took a Commission ordered while Joh was out of town to recommend the formation of the CJC (now CMC).  And this happened at the very end of a long (and obviously dodgy) Premiership.  The CJC/CMC has had less than a handful of years of conservative rule to investigate - so trying to turn this into a numbers game is ridiculous.

jf says:

08:57am | 21/02/11

“Then the term ‘morally corrupt’ should have been employed.  Agreed?”

Only if you think so little of others that you credit them with not even an iota of ability to understand and interpret tools of language and debate. What a dull and grey world it would be if we had to stick to the literal and concise rather than have to be so literal and precise in your language and never resort to metaphor, allegory, simile, parable, fable or tale. You can have it to yourself SD, as I want no part of it. 

“That means that the former Government ministers are guilty of corruption.  How does that make those not being investigated for corruption guilty?  And it’s also a fact that it took a Commission ordered while Joh was out of town to recommend the formation of the CJC (now CMC).  And this happened at the very end of a long (and obviously dodgy) Premiership.  The CJC/CMC has had less than a handful of years of conservative rule to investigate - so trying to turn this into a numbers game is ridiculous.”

As you will note, SD, I agree and set those on the conservative side of the fence straight in saying that it was absurd to suggest that because Joh was acquited that he was therefore not corrupt. It was a shameful period in Qld and conservative political history. However, I didn’t start the numbers game. You cannot make claims about the apparent corruption of one conservative Government that was voted out over twenty years ago and conveniently ignore the greater corruption of a Labor government that is still in power.

Steely Dan says:

09:45am | 21/02/11

@ jf

“Only if you think so little of others that you credit them with not even an iota of ability to understand and interpret tools of language and debate.”
Context is king, jf.  If a teacher uses the term ‘unintelligent’ to describe their pupil, it would be foolish to think they were referring to their emotional intelligence.  If a judge calls a convict a ‘thief’, it would be foolish to think the lovelorn judge had his or her heart stolen by the prisoner.  Likewise, whenever I hear the term ‘corrupt’ used to describe politicians, I will assume that it refers to an illegal action. 

“You cannot make claims about the apparent corruption of one conservative Government that was voted out over twenty years ago and conveniently ignore the greater corruption of a Labor government that is still in power.”
One was demonstrably corrupt at the highest level (although Joh was never convicted), the other isn’t.  Of course the ALP has had corrupt ministers - I want to know how that makes the current ALP government corrupt.  And yes, I mean corrupt in a legal sense.

Narelle says:

10:07am | 18/02/11

I totally agree Tom.  Well worded argument.

Kath Grant says:

05:07pm | 18/02/11

Perhaps religion could be taken right out of it.  Have all marriages performed as civil ceremonies, then those who wished to could have a religious service in the church of their choice.

OddCreature says:

04:19pm | 19/02/11

I agree 100% Tom D. The pollies just don’t want to upset the God-botherers.

The solution is really so bloody simple, and it’s stupid no politician has thought of it. Make gay marriage legal and equal in the country of Australia, but acknowledge within the law that no church, or other religious institution, would be required to marry gay couples unless they choose to. That way gay marriage is equal under the law, but the church can convince themselves they aren’t really married, because they are only married by law and not in the eyes of God.

Why is that so hard for any government to manage?

Danny B says:

09:11am | 18/02/11

Or alternatively, if the religious organisations want to have a say in politics, they should pay their ‘admission fee’ like everyone else and be taxed.

Blazes says:

10:00am | 18/02/11

Actually, the Soviet Union, an offically atheist, extremely left-wing state, kept the traditional definition of marriage. So unlesss you’re saying that the communists of Russia were religious fanatics, you’d have to accept that there is nothing necessarily religious, or even conservative for that matter, about keeping the traditional definition of marriage.

acotrel says:

04:59pm | 18/02/11

@Blazes. It’s impossible to draw parralels between Russia and Australia’s approach to gay marriage.  We have a completely different background and culture.  We haven’t spent hundreds of years under the indoctrination of the catholic church.  The change under communism was dramatic, and regardless of their radical attempts, total reprogramming of their society didn’t occur. Hence Russia is no longer communist

kurai88 says:

12:00am | 21/02/11

“We haven’t spent hundreds of years under the indoctrination of the catholic church”
@acotrel
Excuse me, but A) yes we have- what was the primary religion in Australia if not Christianity? and B) Russia has never had more than a handful of incindental Catholics. It’s primary religion in the last couple of hundred years was Orthodox Christianity. I may be nit picking but if you dont know enough bough the subject you are discussing with such supposed authority - perhaps you shouldn’t be.

TChong says:

07:29am | 18/02/11

Agree iansand.
What is it with zealots and their need for imaginary sky pals to justify what they do.?

RGG says:

08:22am | 18/02/11

I agree and I would go further, and add this: Jesus never spoke about gay marriage. In fact, Jesus never spoke about homosexuality - those writings are in the books of the Old Testament and the Apostle Paul. Jesus did, however, criticise divorce harshly. Why does the church oppose gay marriage so vehemetly but remain silent on the issue of legal, no-fault divorce?

Oh that’s right, its constituents benefit from that particular exception.

Jim says:

08:46am | 18/02/11

If you are not joined by a preist / reverend / pastor, I don’t consider you married. Your union is nothing more than legal recognition of your relationship.

Isn’t the biggest roadblock the polls of Western Sydney and their rejection of same sex unions?

Givusour Roits says:

09:55am | 18/02/11

iansand, TChong and Jim, let’s go and ask our mates keyser and hilaly what they think on the subject? Cummon boys, don’t be chicken.

TChong says:

10:27am | 18/02/11

Givshedd : WTF ? I wouldnt give a rats what any religion considers about anything.
You mention islam, why?
I’m not beholden to allah , mohammed, or their cuz, Mr JH Christ.
If you dont agree, fine, be straight forward like Jim.
But, you’re trying a bit of islam bashing.
At least have the cods to be honest.

DB says:

11:22am | 18/02/11

It is simple iansand. Marriage is defined between a marriage and a woman. The gays have been given options for a word to describe a non-naturally child bearing union and they have refused and expect that the majority change bows to their demands. Also as is traditional with left wing style arrogance, they love to call people racists, xenophobes, etc, etc to win their argument.

kate says:

11:44am | 18/02/11

“a non-naturally child bearing union” ??!??

So, how’s that going to work DB?  Who are you going to get to certify fertility?  Is divorce automatic if there are no offspring after a certain no of years?  Adoption is presumably out, as is post-menopausal marriage, and if you choose not to have children - no marriage for you!

Never has the state inquired into procreative capacity or
intent before issuing a marriage license; indeed, a marriage license is more than a license to have procreative sexual intercourse. ““[I]t would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse.””  Perrry v Schwarzenegger

Givusour Roits says:

12:04pm | 18/02/11

TChong, you already attacked islam by your phrase “zealots and their need for imaginary sky pals”. Looked like an insult to me. Now you are backflipping, you fool.

DB says:

12:20pm | 18/02/11

Thanks for bitting Kate. I have always found it amusing how Gays in a UNION think they have a right to adoption or IVF when the NATURAL outcome of the relationship alternative they have chosen can not bear children. Which comes back to the point, they want it both ways, a gay relationships without accepting some of its natural consequences and the word marriage (ignoring its accepted definition) and therefore children. PS before you carry on with your dribble of women in a male woman relationship not being able to have children due to issues, firstly remember that the natural potential is there if everything is working AND go back to the dictionary definition of marriage (it covers the outburst).

iansand says:

12:45pm | 18/02/11

So IVF is natural for a heterosexual couple?  I must not understand the process properly.

Steely Dan says:

01:09pm | 18/02/11

@ DB

“It is simple iansand. Marriage is defined between a marriage and a woman.”
This is the worst argument against same-sex marriage I’ve ever heard - and it’s the most common!  The Australian government should not decide policy by peering into a dictionary, DB.  Australia decides what it’s laws should be.  When we amend laws we amend the legal definition.  We don’t need to get permission from dictionary publishers before we take a Bill to parliament.

“The gays have been given options for a word to describe a non-naturally child bearing union and they have refused and expect that the majority change bows to their demands.”
Of course.  What’s wrong with that?  We believe in equal rights in Australia, DB.  I don’t know which country you’re commenting from, but here in the land down under you can’t deny somebody equal status simply because of your personal hatred of a minority.  For example, if the majority of Australians wanted Hinduism banned - it couldn’t happen.
That might be unfathomable to you, but it’s how we run our successful democracy, and it works.

Luce says:

01:16pm | 18/02/11

DB, I’m afraid your argument doesn’t stand.

If a woman or a man has been infertile their entire life then the potential was never there. Should they not be allowed to marry? Would their spouse not continue to love them? And what about those couples who seek IVF, adoption etc. Are they, too, simply not accepting the natural consequences of their particular predicament?

Your apparently logical argument is nothing more then thinly veiled prejudice.

Luce says:

01:22pm | 18/02/11

Oh and…

“...and they have refused and expect that the majority change bows to their demands.”

What bowing? Is this going to change your life in any way, shape or form? Do you personally have to make any changes / put in work in order for others to have the same rights as you?

Please, tell me how this is going to negatively affect your life, or anyone else’s, for that matter (aside from distressingly shake up the dusty, archaic sensibilities of the conservatives / religious)? If you can’t then none of your arguments have any substance.

DB says:

01:32pm | 18/02/11

And Steely Dan, if you bother to follow the law I will be ecstatic. Law states that if some practice, at work for example is accepted as the unofficial norm, then it becomes legally recognised and the boss cannot punish people for doing it. Marriage being between a male and female has been the accepted norm for centuries now, so it is time for xenophobes like you are told to leave the word alone.

GDS says:

01:34pm | 18/02/11

@ DB

fact is, the ‘accepted dictionary definition’ of marriage is no longer being accepted by large numbers of people. that’s the whole cause of/point of the debate. also, ‘natural potential’ hasn’t counted for jack since before the stone age. ALL technology counters some form of natural potential. by your logic, if you are mangled in a car wreck, you should refuse treatment and use your natural potential to self heal. actually you wouldn’t be driving a car in the first place would you, since you don’t have the ‘natural potential’ to cover long distances in such a short time? and you sure as hell wouldnt be using a computer as they are godless sorcery

Luce says:

02:05pm | 18/02/11

@ DB, its a bit rich for you to be calling others xenophobes.

Steely Dan says:

02:13pm | 18/02/11

@ DB

“Law states that if some practice, at work for example is accepted as the unofficial norm, then it becomes legally recognised and the boss cannot punish people for doing it.”
What law is this? And is this law immune to legislative amendment?

“Marriage being between a male and female has been the accepted norm for centuries now”
So was keeping women out of politics.  And aborigines too.  Ergo, no voting or right to stand as a representative for women and indigenous people, eh DB? 
The argument from tradition is a particularly poor one.  Historical bigotry is no more valid than contemporary bigotry.

“so it is time for xenophobes like you are told to leave the word alone.”
Speaking of leaving words alone, leave ‘xenophobes’ alone until you learn what it means and can use it appropriately.

DB says:

03:07pm | 18/02/11

@ DB, its a bit rich for you to be calling others xenophobes.
Lucy, the word is being used with the respect it desirves give how freely the Left use it against any argument presented against their agenda.

Luce says:

03:38pm | 18/02/11

DB, “Lucy, the word is being used with the respect it desirves give how freely the Left use it against any argument presented against their agenda.”

What are you talking about??

You’re calling an advocate for equal marriage rights a xenophobe. Do even know what a xenophobe is? It’s someone who has a fear or dislike of things or people that are unknown or foreign. That description fits you (the one trying to suppress the rights of those different to you) better then it does Steely Dan (the one advocating equal rights for ALL).

Carlos says:

07:09pm | 18/02/11

@ DB

Marriage actually predates Christianity.

Just sayin’.

exumbrerum says:

12:15pm | 19/02/11

@ Carlos - God created Eve as a wife and helpmeet for Adam. How did marriage precede the fundamental originity of Christianity?

jf says:

11:38am | 20/02/11

DB says:11:22am | 18/02/11

“Also as is traditional with left wing style arrogance, they love to call people racists, xenophobes, etc, etc to win their argument.”

Sorry DB, I’m a conservative, have always been (at least since I was able to vote anyway) and am very much for legalising gay marriage. People who oppose gay marriage are not necessarily rascists (people of all races oppose gay marriage and, in fact, gay marriage appears to have more support in liberal, western democracies than in not Western countries) or even religious (eg North Korea, USSR, China). However, there is a pretty good chance that they are ignorant or bigotted. At least the ignorant can become informed. Hopefully, you have read this blog and thought some more about it and why on earth two men don’t have the same right to make each other miserable as a man and a woman.

Try this: imagine if one of your kids was gay. Would you want them to not have the same rights as everyone else simply because of their sexuality?

Carlos says:

01:59pm | 20/02/11

@ exumbrerum

Sorry, when I want to entertain myself with works of fiction I at least go for something slightly more plausible.

RGG says:

08:25am | 18/02/11

“The history of the world” as you so eloquently put it is a bit more fluid than you think. Did you know that there are cultures in the world where - get this - it is common to have more than one wife? Shocking I know. And for several thousand years before the middle ages, that was the norm in what I would describe as the majority of the world’s countries. People advocating “traditional” marriage need to realise that the “tradition” they’re defending only stretches back a few hundred years, which in the grand scheme of things, is nothing.

Traditionally, divorce was either illegal or had to be evidenced by fault. Are you also advocating a return to this? If not, why not?

Syl says:

10:31am | 18/02/11

Jedi

Normally I tend to agree with you but in this case I can’t.  There is not one definition for marriage.  The definition depends on the culture you are referring to.  Some places already have gay marriage, already this makes the definition absolete, it is not universal.  Even if it was, marriage is a man made institution, we created it, we can change it.

I have no problem with gay marriage.  I am married myself, to my lovely wife.  I do not see how letting two guys (or gals) who want to take that same step lessen my marriage or affect me in any way.  It’s not for me, Im not gay, but I have no reason to deny them the same experience.

Personally I dont see a problem with “arguing with the history of the world and every religion”.  If we never questioned the way things are done we would never move forward.  Women would still be second class citizens, the poor would still be slaves and we would still be marrying 10 yr old girls (i realise this still happens in some places but hey). 
Personally think religion is bullshit anyway, and has no bearing on my decisions at all, so arguing against religions would be fully worthwhile for me.  I dont see it as discrimating against religion at all.  Making gay marriage legal does not force religions into accepting it.  They can still refuse to marry gays if they like (and undoubtedly will).  Gay marriage will be a purely secular ceremony.  It does not affect them in any way whatsoever, other than somehow “offending” them.  And as I have said before, not being offended is not a human right.

We have to share the world with billions of other people, all with different cultures, backgrounds and views.  We can’t please everyone, but when their is an issue that is greatly beneficial to one group of people, while not impeding anyone elses human rights, it should be a no-brainer.

Laura says:

10:43am | 18/02/11

There are plenty of ‘bible scholars’ out there who disagree.

Case in point: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/09/my-take-the-bible’s-surprisingly-mixed-messages-on-sexuality/

DG says:

10:52am | 18/02/11

Two things derived from one statement:

“by changing our history & demoting religion you are in fact discriminating against a lot”

No one is suggesting that history be changed, only that the future be changed. But as slavery was abolished, as too was the stolen generation, the inquisition and the cold war - them comes a time to put the differences aside. That doesn’t change history.

Secondly - you are talking about a 2000 year old middle eastern religion. There is no suggestion of demoting religion (unless you are suggesting that we are presently a theocracy) only recognition of the separation of church and state.

No one is suggesting that church groupos should be legally obliged to “marry” gay couples, only that there be no distinction between married couples on the basis of their sexual preference.

Sith says:

11:47am | 18/02/11

You fail to mention that the Macquarie Dictionary also defines marriage as “3: any intimate union”. Not to mention quoting a dictionary is hardly grounds for denying same-sex couples the legal right to marry. The meanings of words change with social use, you only need to look up the word ‘gay’ to see that, despite there still being some objection to the word meaning homosexual there is no denying that it has become current in mainstream English since the 1950’s.
And despite what you say about arguing against the history of the world, same-sex marriage is not uncommon in the history of many cultures, including out own. And regardless of what the church might say, marriage started as a civil arrangement that was appropriated by the church when Christianity came to Europe. No one wanted to live the life of abstinence that was promoted by the early Christians, so they decided to bless the unions because it was a lesser evil than sex out of wedlock in an attempt to gain followers.
Not to mention up until the late 1800’s marriage for love was frowned upon. It was an arrangement between families to gain status and pool their wealth.
‘Traditional’ marriage is a fairy tale and giving same-sex couples the same privileges as hetero couples doesn’t harm anyone. The law changes to reflect changes in society - that cannot be denied. If everyone just stated and accepted something written on paper as “fact”, there would be no such thing as progress.

Steely Dan says:

01:19pm | 18/02/11

@ Jedi_T

Did ending apartheid ‘discriminate’ against white South Africans who wanted it to stay?  No.
Discrimination does not mean to ‘to disappoint people’s expectations’.  Discrimination is refusing equal treatment (where equal treatment is possible).  Anti-equal rights people have a right to moan and grumble and complain about the prospect of equal marriage, but even if they’re the majority (and I don’t believe they are), making marriage legal for same-sex couples does not discriminate against anybody.

Luce says:

01:31pm | 18/02/11

Jedi, I fail to see how extending rights normally reserved for part of the population, to the whole population, while not changing the rights of the people who enjoyed them originally, is discriminating against anyone? Nothing changes for heterosexual couples… unless I’m seriously missing something here??

And “you have to argue against the history of the world and argue against every religion” is a pretty sensationalist generalization to make, wouldn’t you say?

pendant says:

01:55pm | 18/02/11

Sith, which version of the word marriage are they referring to though? Intimate Union version of ‘marriage’ can refer to simply to 2 objects as in “the marriage of Red Wine jus with Steak”. It may not actually mean wedding bells marriage. The ambiguity of English makes it hard to learn and provides pedantic people with a nice chance to argue.

Kath Grant says:

05:23pm | 18/02/11

Jedi I wish you, or someone like you, could explain to me exactly how gays and lesbians being allowed to marry will affect the lives of straight people?  I’ve given it a lot of thought and just cannot see how it could possibly impact on my life.

Sith says:

06:37pm | 18/02/11

pendant, I agree that the ambiguity of the English language lends itself to arguments from pedantic people - it’s just the third meaning under the word marriage, the Macquarie Dictionary doesn’t provide an example for it’s usage by that meaning. But it could mean an intimate union between between two people (of any sex and gender identity) that go together just as well as Red Wine Jus and Steak.

GlendaSings says:

07:16pm | 20/02/11

The word marriage comes from the Latin word ‘maritus’. It was used in Roman times to represent both opposite and same sex unions. Emperor Nero had a same sex partner, with the word ‘maritus’ being used to describe the relationship.

RGG says:

09:11am | 18/02/11

Bilby: No they won’t? Churches can and do refuse to marry all kinds of people for different reasons, from the benign (did not go through mandatory pre-marriage counselling), to the reasonable (wrong denomination, non-believer) to the offensive (wrong skin colour).

OddCreature says:

04:29pm | 19/02/11

RGG is exactly right - churches are still allowed to make their own rules.

Under Australian law a divorced person can re-marry, but the church won’t allow it unless the marriage is first annulled by the church, a process that can take a very long time, and is only possible if the persons previous partner agrees to the annullment. So right now the church is able to discriminate on the basis of someone’s bitter ex-wife being a bitch.

All the government needs to do is acknowledge that the church is still not required to marry gay couples. It’s just not that complicated, the government are just too much of a bunch of wusses!

HappyCynic says:

09:03am | 18/02/11

You define marriage as between man and woman, others don’t.  Personally I define it as the lifelong union between two loving, consenting and unrelated adults.

Definitions change over time.  E.g “gay” used to mean happy now it’s almost never used in that context, artificial used to mean ‘full of artistic or technical skill’, awful used to mean ‘full of awe’ i.e. something wonderful, delightful, amazing - now it’s the complete opposite.

I could go on with more examples of words changing but it’s better to pass on some useful advice instead.  You’d better just get used to the change in definitions of words because there’s nothing you can do to stop them.  You’ll either adapt your definition to suit the popular one or you’ll be left behind as a relic of a bygone era.  The definition of marriage is changing, it’s not good or bad it’s just more accurate.

RGG says:

09:06am | 18/02/11

I agree completely.

Black people should have the ability to choose our government as well, they can turn up on election day if they want. But they shouldn’t call it voting. Why do they even want to call it voting? They should call it the Indigenous Electoral Representation Measure or something.

After all, it is tradition, and a legal definition, that only non-indigenous folk can ‘vote’.

(oh wait it’s not the middle ages my bad LOL)

James1 says:

09:35am | 18/02/11

Given your attitude towards women and relationships Tony - one of self-proclaimed promiscuity - I am surprised that you even care about how marriage is defined.

Could you explain why for us?  (This is a genuine question - I am always curious to hear people explain unexpected postions.)

Tim says:

10:13am | 18/02/11

I want to define marriage as between me and my five female partners. Why won’t the government stop discriminating against me?
Surely all the gay marriage proponents who talk about discrimination will support my quest for polygamous marriage in Australia. If it should be a right for gays to get married what about all other groups?
Or is it only discrimination when it’s against homosexuals?

Ando says:

11:18am | 18/02/11

I agree with “Why do you even *want* to call it ‘‘marriage’’ . It Amazes me why either side of the argument cares so much what they call their relationship. As long as the rights are the same

Sid says:

11:37am | 18/02/11

Its interesting RGG that you have used ancient history about aboriginals to attack people with different opinions to you. You also use this history as historical fact, like the stolen generation, neglecting the fact that many were half casts and were consequently treated VERY poorly as a result by their tribe. To quote on of the stolen generation, the tribe treated her lower than the camp dog. Bit racist those aboriginals ha. Then we could also look at their claim that they are the “First Australians”, when there is irrefutable and ample evidence that they are at best the “Third Australians”. You RGG play very fast and free with history to support your stance!

Justin says:

12:03pm | 18/02/11

Funny enough, marriage also used to be defined as a contract for a man to purchase someones daughter… guess what.. things change..

If you want to retain the use of the word marriage only for hetrosexual people, then all the laws in the country need to remove any reference to the word marriage and replace it with something else, perhaps ‘registered partnership’. All forms where you’re currently asked if you’re married should also be changed to this new word… do you know why?? Seperate but equal never works! If you’re so keen on keeping the word marriage, you can have it.. but everyone citizen should be treated equally and have the same rights in the eyes of the law so using seperate names for the EXACT same thing benefits NOBODY

Syl says:

12:32pm | 18/02/11

Tim says:
10:13am | 18/02/11
“I want to define marriage as between me and my five female partners. Why won’t the government stop discriminating against me?
Surely all the gay marriage proponents who talk about discrimination will support my quest for polygamous marriage in Australia. If it should be a right for gays to get married what about all other groups?
Or is it only discrimination when it’s against homosexuals? “

Im a supporter of gay marriage (to the point where it doesnt affect me but i dont see any reason against it).  And I personally couldnt give a stuff if you want to marry 5 women.  As long as everyone is a willing participant etc.  However not everyone will share my view.

If you want it so bad, do what the gays (and gay marriage supporters) have done, let your issue be known and lobby for it.  Then let the public decide (as we should with gay marriage).

If you don’t agree with gay marriage that’s fine, argue your reasons.  Using a strawman will get you nowhere.

Tony of Poorakistan says:

12:44pm | 18/02/11

@ James1

Fair question. It has more to do with people attempting to subvert an established practice, to change the agenda to suit themselves rather than marriage, per se. 
 
You obviously pay a fair bit of attention to what is said in here; I might add that it is possible to practice ethical polyamory, and that it is still possible to respect submissive women

Steely Dan says:

01:27pm | 18/02/11

@ Tony

“Why do you even *want* to call it ‘‘marriage’’ ?”
Why not call it marriage?  That’s the real question.
If you think that the term ‘marriage’ has some special meaning to you - isn’t it reasonable to expect that it might have some special meaning to others?

This is yet another argument against gay marriage that I’ll never understand.  Gays are silly for fighting for the rights to a word, but anti-gay-marriage people are sensible for ‘defending’ it with equal zealotry?  Either the word has meaning to you (and everyone should be entitled to it) or it has no meaning to you (and you shouldn’t care if anybody wants it).

Luce says:

01:52pm | 18/02/11

@Tim, straw man alert!!

James1 says:

09:37am | 18/02/11

The question is, do those reasons and arguments exist?  If they do, I haven’t heard them put forth, and this is one of the debates that I always follow.

Conservatives Unite! (Formerly AdamC) says:

10:28am | 18/02/11

But that is the point. Why can people seemingly be so passionate about something but not effectively articulate how it will have a positive impact on their lives.

People would be more likely to respond to positive arguments than the usual: “Gay marriage is a HUMAN RIGHT and everyone who opposes it is a BIGOT or a religious FUNDAMENTALIST !!!” How is that likely to convince anyone?

iansand says:

10:52am | 18/02/11

How does a heterosexual marriage improve the life of the parties to it?  Whatever those reasons are, why do they not apply to homosexual people?

kate says:

11:46am | 18/02/11

“Why can people seemingly be so passionate about something but not effectively articulate how it will have a positive impact on their lives?”

More to the point, why can’t opponents explain what possible detriment there will be to their marriage if I am also married, or even what business it is of theirs if I am married?

Justin says:

12:09pm | 18/02/11

Well you can read some of Australia’s immigration policies for a start… a hetrosexual couple (one australian citizen the other not) can get married and the day after enter on a spousal visa as long as they have a certificate.. since a gay couple in the same situation do not have that option the immigration process is much more difficult.. in fact, should the foriegn citizen belong to a more advance society than australia’s and allows same-sex marriage, the australian immigration department will not even accept their VALID marriage certificate..

Does this help with an argument which provides “constructive reasons why marriage would improve the lives of gays in (monogamous) relationships, beyond the symbolism of being ‘accepted’”

Conservatives Unite! says:

03:06pm | 18/02/11

Justin, I take your point but you seem to be putting the cart before the horse. Australia doesn’t allow gay marriage so, of course, gays can’t use a marriage certificate to substantiate a partnership for the purpose of obtaining a partnership visa. (There is no special marriage visa.) So it becomes a circular argument. I also note the DIAC website makes it clear that a partner can be a same sex partner.

I also think DIAC would do just as much checking of the bona fides of marriages it regards as suspect as it would for non-marriage ‘partnerships’.

Tim says:

04:33pm | 20/02/11

I’m personally experiencing the problems with the different treatment for immigration.  If you are straight, you can have an arranged marriage and bring your fiancee here on a propsective spouse visa as long as you have met at least once if your adult life.  The Department of Immigration does recognise same-sex partners, but only if you can prove you have lived together for at least 12 months.  So there are two very different standards, and that is the practical difference.  If gay people could get married, the same standards would be applied to all couples.  It’s also saying generally that gay relationships need to be proved to a higher standard that heterosexual marriages.

RGG says:

09:13am | 18/02/11

“Civil union or nothing, I don’t and wont ever accept the term marriage used in a gay partnership.”

And then:

“I don’t see how being married makes any difference ... people dont know and really its little of anyone else’s business!”

The cognitive dissonance must be amazing.

progressivesunite says:

09:37am | 18/02/11

But if you walk down the street with your opposite-sex partner, you’re “putting on a show to tell everyone you’re straight” - what’s the difference??

Be honest - you just don’t like gays

James1 says:

09:39am | 18/02/11

“Civil union or nothing, I don’t and wont ever accept the term marriage used in a gay partnership.”

And what motivates such a sentiment if not feeling hard done by?  If you really “just don’t care”, why do you seem to care so much?

Phil says:

10:13am | 18/02/11

@RGG:
Cognitve dissonance hey? you mean like the conflicting ideas of being in a gay relationship and yet wanting kids? or marriage?

@progressivesunite:
Not really, they could just be walking down the street with a female friend, you don’t walk down the street see a man and a woman walking along together and assume they are married do you?
Same as if two guys are walking together down the street I don’t assume they are together in a relationship.
I don’t have a problem with gays, I have a problem with the act and drama that suddenly appears when someone comes out, I find it unnecessary and not who the person really is. Then how that is used and turned in to an excuse to call straight people bigots for having different views to theirs etc etc.

@ James1
Happy to let them recognise their union if they feel the need to do so, with a civil union.
I don’t want the word marriage used when to me and many others marriage is and always will be between a man and woman.

Tim says:

10:21am | 18/02/11

RGG,
you want to talk about cognitive dissonance.
How about all the gay marriage proponents who support gay marriage because they are against discrimination but won’t accept that the exact same argument could and should be used by many other groups that are currently excluded from marriage.
Apparently it’s only discrimination if it affects homosexuals.

Justin says:

12:10pm | 18/02/11

Good thing it’s not you that gay people want to accept their marriage.. it’s the government and their friends and family

James1 says:

12:28pm | 18/02/11

“I don’t want the word marriage used when to me and many others marriage is and always will be between a man and woman.”

So you do care, quite a lot.  Why not just be honest to begin with?

Carly says:

07:28pm | 18/02/11

@ Phil

Just so you know, Gay marriage doesn’t automatically equal “want to get kids”, just like normal marriage. Marriage predates Christianity and has been around in many different cultures and many different forms- and not all of those define it as between a man and a woman!

“I don’t want them using the word marriage”.
Well, that’s your view, and you are entitled to it, but actually over half of Australians do want them to have that right, as shown consistantly in various polls. So you’re kind of outvoted.

Katie says:

06:58pm | 20/02/11

Phil, I have to say that it sounds as if you do indeed care. Y’know, if this rant is any indication.

If you want to stop hearing about this, I’d really think you’d support full equal rights. Then there’d be nothing left to fight for and you’d never hear anything about it again.

Kathy says:

05:42pm | 18/02/11

Can’t wait for the coffee mugs & tea towels with Jules & Tim on them - and the public holiday of course!

conservativesunite (AKA AdamC) says:

09:47am | 18/02/11

See, to me, this is such a negative argument. Why do gay marriage activists keep talking about their opponents’ arguments rather than the benefits that will supposedly accrue to us in our relationships as the result of being able to marry? Simply saying, “Our opposition is wrong because of this and that” is tiresome and unhelpful. Why aren’t you saying “Gay marriage is a good idea, because ...”

Quite frankly, given how much you seem to dislike marriage as an institution, I’m not sure why you would care.

As an aside, I can’t get over your nickname. I dunno why, but I am seriously going to have to road test a ‘unite’ name as well!

kate says:

11:49am | 18/02/11

” “Gay marriage is a good idea, because ...”

Here are a few, just for starters:  (and then maybe you can give me a few reasons why gay marriage is a BAD idea ... not including “because god says so”, or “because I think it’s yucky”)

Marriage benefits both spouses by promoting physical and psychological health.  Married individuals are less likely to engage in behaviors detrimental to health, like smoking or drinking heavily.  Married individuals live longer on average than unmarried individuals.

Material benefits, legal protections and social support
resulting from marriage can increase wealth and improve
psychological well-being for married spouses.
The long-term nature of marriage allows spouses to specialize their labor and encourages spouses to increase household efficiency by dividing labor to increase productivity.

The tangible and intangible benefits of marriage flow to a married couple’s children.

Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment.

The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships.

- Failure to recognise their relationship as marriage places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians, including: gays and lesbians do not have intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples; gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals; and gay and lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society. It reserves the most socially valued form of relationship (marriage) for opposite-sex couples.

- Failure to recognise their relationship as marriage singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment. It perpetuates the stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are not good parents.

- The freedom to marry is recognized as a fundamental right.

(and yes, these are direct quotes - google it and see ... )

progressivesunite says:

12:10pm | 18/02/11

@ conservativesunite - I was going to list reasons why “gay marriage is a good idea” but Kate did that very well so I’ll mostly just say “what kate said” in answer to your question.

I’d also add though that “gay marriage is a good idea” because it shows gay kids that they’re not abnormal and that society sees them as perfectly valued and legitimate members - an important message for kids more likely to kill themselves than straight kids…

Hope the new name is working out : )

Conservatives Unite! says:

12:10pm | 18/02/11

Kate, the problem with your primary line of reasoning is that you are taking comparisons, in a community in which marriage is an option, between those who marry and those who don’t, then applying those findings to a community in which marriage is not an option. It is obviously foolish to imagine that the ability to marry will magically transform existing gay relationships. For example, I am hardly going to start drinking less just because I married my boyfriend of four years. (And we already inspired each other to quit smoking without even getting married. Who woulda thunk it?)

“The long-term nature of marriage allows spouses to specialize their labor and encourages spouses to increase household efficiency by dividing labor to increase productivity” 

Kate, you are referring there to defined gender roles, that is, mum in the kitchen and dad at the office. In my relationship, we are both men. How does that work for us?

“It perpetuates the stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are not good parents. “

I don’t believe people feel that way about gay people. I think some people are concerned about gay couples using fertility treatments that were originally designed for infertile couples or adopting babies in preference to heterosexual couples. That is a different matter to gay marriage, however.

Kate says:

12:52pm | 18/02/11

“Kate, you are referring there to defined gender roles, that is, mum in the kitchen and dad at the office.”

Uh, no.  I’m referring to the fact that it is more efficient to run a household of two adults than one.  If you are in a gay relationship yourself, I’m surprised you don’t have more imagination than that.

As to your assertion that there is no stereotype of gays & lesbians as bad parents, why do you say that “people are concerned” about us using fertility treatments or adopting?  If we are ‘good parents’ there would be no reason for concern.  In fact I think that is the crux of much of the opposition.  If we are allowed to steal ‘their’ word and become ‘normal’ married couples, then people will be forced to admit that we are ‘normal’ parents too – and we can’t have that, can we??

I get that you don’t want to get married.  That’s fine.  But why oppose those of us who do?

Nick says:

02:31pm | 18/02/11

Kate, so the studies that continually show that a child needs a good male and female role model (parent) to grow up balanced are all wrong because the Gay pressure groups produce reports to skilfully walk around the issue of male/female role models. I had a great laugh when they touted the brilliant up bringing of a boy by one lesbian couple in the study and then when the young man talked, he was so feminine he might as well worn a dress. I was then disgusted by the damage they had done to this man.

Conservatives Unite! says:

02:36pm | 18/02/11

Kate, I think you need to read your quote again:

“The long-term nature of marriage allows spouses to specialize their labor and encourages spouses to increase household efficiency by dividing labor to increase productivity.”

What do you think specialise their labour means?

” ... why do you say that “people are concerned” about us using fertility treatments or adopting?  If we are ‘good parents’ there would be no reason for concern.”

Again, I think most people accept that a same sex couple can be ‘good parents’. I think, however, that most people (including me) regard a ‘good’ mother and father as best of all. And, in any event, establishing gay marriage won’t make concerns about gay parenting vanish.

“I get that you don’t want to get married.” I think you want to be a little careful making those sorts of assumptions.

kate says:

02:52pm | 18/02/11

@Nick:  “So the studies that continually show that a child needs a good male and female role model (parent) to grow up balanced are all wrong “

I think you’ll find they’re not so much wrong as non-existent.

Rather than your empty posturing, I prefer actual evidence, from actual experts, like the American Psychological Association (that well known ‘gay pressure group’), which in 2004 reviewed more than two dozen empirical studies concerning sexual orientation and marriage and concluded that:

“There is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children.”

In fact all reputable peer reviewed studies are impressively consistent in their failure to identify deficits in the development of children raised in a lesbian or gay household.

jf says:

11:47am | 20/02/11

I fail to see how the so styled progressives are taking the high moral ground on this issue.

Sure, the very conservative oppose gay marriage. However, as much as I disagree with them on this and many other issues, at least they are transparent about it.

This article was written by a “progressive” criticising another “progressive” for her lack of commitment, principle and action on an issue she purports to support.

The facts are that we the ALP are into their second term in Government and have failed to act on this very straight forward issue that could be addressed very simply.

Who is worse: the person that doesn’t believe in gay marriage or the person who does believe in it but fails to act because of political expediency?

Gillard will tell you about how much she believes in something (gay marriage, AGW and so on) and then do nothing about it, thus winning over those that support the issue but not getting those that oppose it offside by actually doing anything about it.

Perse, TChong etc… Don’t hate the conservatives on this. They have their beliefs and act on them. Hate the people who tell you they believe in it and then do nothing.

Steely Dan says:

01:31pm | 18/02/11

@ DG

“Who loses here?”
The religious right lose the ability to enjoy legally discriminating against people.  The poor things!  How could you be so unfeeling, DG?

DG says:

01:59pm | 18/02/11

They can continue to legally discriminate. They can refuse religious services for homosexual couples.

Carly says:

07:33pm | 18/02/11

@ DG

Brilliance. I’m all for it!

James1 says:

09:49am | 18/02/11

Wonderful.  Can you direct me to where these laws of nature have been written down?  Is there a “Laws of Nature and their Application to Australian Marriage Act” before Parliament?

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

10:16am | 18/02/11

James 1 -  ........or if you prefer , order of nature.

Matt says:

10:47am | 18/02/11

& which “order of nature” is that?

Is that the one wher though further & better research of the animal kingdom has found homosexual relationships in other species of animals?

Or is that the “order of nature” inherited from a set of pronouncements make in religious books many centuries ago?

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

01:00pm | 18/02/11

James 1 :  Matt :  Not hard to apply the reasoning of male and female , not the sick mindset of male and male or female and female .
We were created to multiply M via F.  Maybe you have not noticed but
M via M and F via F does not multiply.  Go figure .

Matt says:

01:26pm | 18/02/11

Oh, oh course - it’s all about the procreation.

If that’s the case then infertile people can’t marry (should we make fertility tests a mandatory feature of the ceremony?); menopausal women can’t marry (or should there be an automatic cutoff age for women to marry); what about paraplegics & quadraplegics?  Yes, I’m being sarcastic, but if I don’t try to laugh about such attitudes, I’d cry instead.

Blimey.  You keep those blikers on & don’t worry about the rest of life happening outside of the range of your vision.

Steely Dan says:

01:50pm | 18/02/11

@ Wayne

We weren’t created to use computers.  Drop the naturalistic fallacy or step away from the PC, retreat to a cave somewhere and leave modern society alone.

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

07:11pm | 18/02/11

Matt :  Steely Dan   :  Word semantics seem to be the defensive fallback in the face of facts.

“..........and leave modern society alone . “

Sorry Dan , i don’t accept that your view constitutes modern society , as it is far more of an immoral blight on humanity.

Steely Dan says:

11:13am | 19/02/11

@ Wayne

” i don’t accept that your view constitutes modern society , as it is far more of an immoral blight on humanity.”
You haven’t mentioned why it’s an “immoral blight on humanity”.  All you’ve said is that you don’t like it and it’s not the status quo.

OddCreature says:

05:16pm | 19/02/11

Ah yes - the ultimate fall out for people against gay marriage. They can’t procreate, therefore shouldn’t be allowed to marry.

Get this through your thick skull Wayne - marriage and babies are mutually exclusive concepts. People can have babies without being married. Likewise people can be married and not have babies.

Marriage in modern society is about one thing only - love. Loving a person, and wanting to declare it in front of your nearest and dearest, and wanting to spend the rest of your lives together in a legally bound relationship. And yes there are a few that marry for money, so I guess technically two reasons. The point is the desire to have babies doesn’t actually come into it at all.

And if we really must consider your so called laws of nature, we must remember that not all humans are naturally inclined to mate for life. Penguins do. But a lot of humans like to root around. A bit like cows actually. So if anything marriage is the unnatural part. The fact is when we say “forsaking all others” we’re saying that although we’ll be naturally inclined to go bang someone else, we’re going to make a concerted effort not to. Gay people can fight temptation just as well as straight people.

Danny B says:

12:00pm | 18/02/11

BT,

That’s an interesting way of putting it.  It’s also the closest I’ve seen to an argument for gay marriage, rather than a rebuttal of the arguments against.

Elphaba says:

10:21am | 18/02/11

I agree.  I would have thought heterosexual couples had done enough to devalue the institution of marriage - particularly in the US where you can get married and divorced in the same day (well, practically).

Why not let the gays have a go?

OchreBunyip says:

10:44am | 18/02/11

Why should a heterosexual marriage be considered differently to a homosexual marriage? If we truly believe in equality then why does it matter what gender combination is involved, as long as they are of the same species? I understand that some religions will only marry certain pre-approved gender combinations but those are the rules of their religion; if you want to be a member of the club then it is club rules. From a secular governmental point of view, we should be treated people equally. If religious people want to change the attitude of their religion that is not for a government to legislate but for the congregation to effect. As long as the rules are legal, they can be as weird as you like.

If a gay couple get married, it does not take away from any hetero couple’s marriage. The hetero couple lose no rights, they lose no money, they lose no social position. Married for the gay couple means married with all the rights AND obligations of hetero married couples.

Honestly for my money, I think gays wanting to buy into the misery that marriage is often portrayed as is a bit shortsighted but I firmly believe everyone should have equal access to unimaginable pain and suffering and occasional good stuff.

kate says:

11:55am | 18/02/11

“listening to those who argue for gay marriage, I haven’t heard any compelling reason why their relationship has to be called a “marriage”.”

You haven’t been listening carefully enough.  Look here for about a dozen very carefully argued and cogent reasons, just for a start: https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/

Stewart Henstock says:

03:10pm | 18/02/11

It’s pretty simple.
Gays can’t get “married” because they’re “gay” and i don’t want to share what i hold sacred and spent my life procuring.
Marriage was instigated 1000’s of years ago before the Catholic Church made it a sacrament.
It was merely a way to legally establish ones heir.
It basically had nothing to do with love or fidelity.
Now considering gays can’t biologically produce an heir they therefore can’t marry.
As for being discriminated against or not receiving the same benefits or advantages that us hetros get when we marry….who cares…your life style…your choice….just bugger off and let us hetros do our thing and go find your own thing.

Steely Dan says:

04:33pm | 18/02/11

@ Stewart Henstock

“i don’t want to share what i hold sacred and spent my life procuring.”
What are they going to take away from you, Stewart? 

“Now considering gays can’t biologically produce an heir they therefore can’t marry.”
That’s what is called a ‘non sequitur’, Stew.

“just bugger off and let us hetros do our thing and go find your own thing.”
Most of us heteros don’t have a problem with equal rights.

kate says:

12:59pm | 18/02/11

Alternatively, how about leave the word ‘marriage’ as it was before religions muscled in, namely a civil contract with civil legal consequences.  “Marriage” would be available to any two unrelated adults prepared to make a monogamous committment to a shared life. 

You could create a new phrase (say, “religious union”) for ceremonies conducted by whichever religion you choose to follow?  A ‘religious union’ would be available to anyone who satisfied whatever rules and restrictions each particular religion chose to put around it.  Of course it would have no legal significance, but some people would presumably still choose it for cultural or historical reasons.

Problem solved.

Syl says:

01:11pm | 18/02/11

Or, we could just call it a marriage and let the religions refuse to do the ceremony for gays anyway (like they could if it was legalised).

No-one is forcing the churches to marry gays.  No-one is forcing the churches to support the marriage of gays.  Marriage is not a religious institution (it is a secular insititution that some people celebrate with a religious ceremony).  Let the gays have their marriage and the churches keep doing what they have always done (and refuse to marry gays).

Why should everyone else make concessions because a particular group wants to claim a secular institution as their own.

Syl says:

01:20pm | 18/02/11

I was too busy laughing.

HappyCynic says:

01:34pm | 18/02/11

Nope.  One can analyse fiction seriously if they choose to and fiction can withstand serious analysis.  Why else would we study Shakespeare and the like in school? 

The fact that people choose to live by the word according to Jeebus instead the word according to Bill isn’t important when conducting serious and objective analysis. 

Take that thou gorbellied fat-kidneyed fustilarian! 

malohi says:

02:31pm | 18/02/11

Happy Cynic,
I do not dispute that it is possible (in fact I deem it preferable) that one can undertake a serious analysis of religious doctrine.

It is the suggestion that the doctrine once analysed, would ‘withstand’ objective scrutiny, with the implication that it would not subsequently be falsified or rendered incredible with which I take umbrage.

However I do appreciate you eloquent retort to the initial posting which I proffered. So to you good sir (or ma’am), I tip my hat.

Rose says:

03:48pm | 18/02/11

Any religious doctrine that protects pedophiles and child abusers should have absolutely NO SAY in the laws of our country.

Jim says:

02:29pm | 18/02/11

Why should I give up my battle to have no-fault divorce chucked out. That one peice of legislation has cast ruination on family values. People used to work at their marriages, now they can just cast them away.

I think we should go back to when you had to set your partner up in the most compromising position possible before getting a divorce.

Squeeze the Middle. says:

02:48pm | 18/02/11

Of course in caused ruination.  Wasn’t that the whole point of no fault divorce?

But you’re trying to get the cork back into the champagne bottle.  Good luck with that. Winning wars is all about strategy.  Just sending wave after wave out of the trenches gets you ....

Sometimes there’s easier ways of winning the war than holding the line.

Stewart Henstock says:

03:55pm | 18/02/11

You persoanlly don’t hear any arguement because you don’t believe in any marriage period…...hello!!!!!
Me thinks you entered the wrong forum….try the duck shooters down the hall.

Stewart Henstock says:

06:40am | 19/02/11

Well for starters the term “marriage” has been implemented…between male and female… over thousands of years.
Get over it?
Why don’t you get over it….
The only thing i’m throwing at you is that “marriage” was invented for the purpose to produce a legal offspring,something gays biologically can’t do.
To be blunt…after working on my marriage for decades i don’t want to see it merged with something from left field that is in no way have any correlation to what i have.

Carlos says:

08:04pm | 18/02/11

Erm, what?

gary says:

07:08pm | 19/02/11

if ‘gay’s cannot naturally produce a legal heir’ is reason to not allow them to marry, then how about hetersexual couples who either do not want, or cannot have children? is their marriage deemed null and void after 2 years? 5 years? 10 years? are heterosexual couples not allowed to marry once the female has gone through menopause - they too will not be able to produce a legal heir?
times and society has changed in the thousands of years since marriage was invented. similarly, thousands of years ago you couldn’t drive a car, talk on a telephone, pass comment on an internet forum, but you do all these nowadays…

gary says:

11:26am | 20/02/11

the purpose of ‘civil union’ is to imply that gay couples are different from the heterosexual society - yet another inequality. sure, gay men and women as couples cannot reproduce, but then there are hetersexual couples that cannot reproduce either. so do they therefore only qualify for ‘civil union’?
and of all the gay men and women i know of that support ‘gay marriage’, none of them are looking to be seen as straight. they are looking for society to accept them as just another married couple, doing what other married couples do. if you actually opened your eyes and met some gay couples you’d realise they’re not that different to their heterosexual counterparts. go to work, pay bills and taxes, keep house, do the grocery shopping etc.,
there is no tradition for gay couples to change their surname once wed because to date, gay couples have not been allowed to wed. and even once it’s legal, and this conversation is a thing of the past, doesn’t mean that gay couples have to change surnames. i know straight couples where the wife has retained her surname. there’s no legal obligation here.
your language has a very ‘them’ and ‘us’ undertone to it. until you start seeing everyone as being equal, you won’t be able to move past your narrow viewpoint.
and please don’t take this as an attack on you personally, this is just my opinion of your comment:-)

Carlos says:

01:56pm | 20/02/11

@ Sandy

I think you got the wrong topic love

Jane says:

08:42am | 22/02/11

Ahhh,The sate of Marriage in Australia is a legal entity that is civil and may be religiously celebrated as well - as any minister officiating a marriage in a church says, it’s the signing of the piece of paper that is the legal/state part of the ceremony; the rest of a church wedding is about a couple’s relationship with each other and their God. If gay marriage becomes “legal” surely the next test case will be to force a minister (who truly believes the Biblical objection to homosexual acts) to officiate at the church marriage of a gay couple.
Please! Think! Some kind of Legal Union for committed gay couples that gives them every right EXCEPT forcing religious groups to officiate their union. Then the religious groups cannot object because they are not being legally forced to participate.
In Australia, the church is very separated from the state. any kind of law that recognises gay unions, needs to recognise that it cannot legislate for religious objection.

Adam says:

01:25am | 21/02/11

The rights of religious institutions should be observed. Either has the right to impose their law on the other. If there is to be a law written including and observing the marriage of two people of the same sex then religious should hold their rights to object and reject to marry those two in their institution.

Before you jump from one extreme to another and say we’re a secular country and so on let me inform you of something. Marriage has never been between a two people of the same sex, nor has it been challenged until recently. If you read the bible or any religious text you would find that is part of the teaching to enter into marriage so that you may not commit adultery and become one with each other (there’s obviously more, but that’s just a little part of it). That is not to say that the definition hasn’t changed, but there’s some perspective from the religious side, who by the way are also citizens of this country. Secondly a secular state is not an atheist state. It essentially means that the state does not have a formal religion unlike Iran.

P.S. Just because people don’t agree with you doesn’t make them intolerant or bigots. And anyway who cares? you have to put a case forward before making out right blank statements based on your own prejudice.