Human relationships are a many splendored thing

VVS says:

07:50am | 26/10/11

I call it their hail mary pass… despite being about 50 points behind on the scoreboard…

Won’t change the result on next March’s election.

toast says:

08:04am | 26/10/11

@ Ghost - Agreed.

This is a cheap political stunt at the end of a parliamentary sitting before the next election, it detracts from the real issues in Qld.

This falls way short of “Gay Marriage” it will simply recognise gay relationships in other legal arrangements, this is not a bad thing at all, but not an issue that the majority of Qld’s are voicing anger about.

Gay marriage will need to be decided by the Federal Parliament. I’m not against this Bill but the reality is if it inconsistent with commonwealth law it will be void to the extent of the inconsistency.

This is a smoke screen, and in no way a means of creating gay marriage recognised by the Commonwealth Marriage Act. So lets not debate gay marriage because this is not what this bill creates.

Sarah says:

09:16am | 26/10/11

@Ghost

Thank God you wrote it, as you save me from getting on my high horse and typing out a comment.

Have no real issue on gay marriage. I’m straight, so it doesn’t really impact me - good luck to everyone I say.

But Andrew Fraser should be ashamed of his greasy self, for using a topic that is clearly heart-breakingly important to thousands of men and women across the nation, as a sleazy ploy to garner some votes come election time.

You know you’re in for a wipeout Andrew! Goodness - that means you’ll have to go and get a real job out in the real world after the election, huh? Pity.

Rose says:

10:42am | 26/10/11

Maybe it’s not so much an attempt to lift the vote but a recognition that they are going to get the boot so they may as well go out doing the right thing. They have nothing to lose by doing the right thing, so why not?

nihonin says:

11:35am | 26/10/11

Problem with this dog whistle by Andrew, is that it will work for them.  Judging by some comments previously posted on The Punch and other forum sites, some people would vote for a party that is willing to introduce gay marriage legislation even if it is the only platform they run on.

AliceC says:

11:17am | 26/10/11

” I wouldn’t be able to distinguish between a marriage ceremony, or the end of a footy game ! “

Brilliant! : ) Bring on same sex marriage, at the very least it will boost the economy.

Tim says:

01:54pm | 26/10/11

I love this post!

jf says:

05:53pm | 26/10/11

acotrel says:07:01am | 26/10/11

So, let me get this straight: you believe that gay people not being able to marry is discrimination?

TC says:

07:00am | 27/10/11

luckily i can distinguish between a marriage ceremony and a footy game and i dont want to see tow men kissing on my TV. Yep i can and will turn it off.

Misanthrope says:

07:04am | 26/10/11

Hah! “Love” is a fantasy concoted by delusional losers and story writers. It isn’t real. As for marriage - a long obsolete fad entered into by people because its what everyone else does. It has no meaning and anyone stupid enough to want to do it shuld be allowed.

Sheldon says:

07:06am | 26/10/11

I love my daughter can I marry her?

Mahhrat says:

08:21am | 26/10/11

@Misanthrope, I’m not saying it’s a good idea, I’m saying that if I can marry a woman, I can marry a man.

@Sheldon, I have no legal argument against you doing so (provided she is of appropriate age), but I do if you want to reproduce.  Plus, you’d be a sick bastard.

neo says:

11:36am | 26/10/11

I love my family, I love my friends, I love my girlfriend, and I love my football team. I want to marry one day and have kids, so they, in turn, will love me like I will love them. The delusional losers who don’t understand these things deserve only pity.

nihonin says:

02:28pm | 26/10/11

Adrenaline, Dopamine &  Serotonin, are the basic chemicals for Love.  As our fellow Puncher neo has stated: The delusional losers who don’t understand these things deserve only pity.

Also Misanthrope discusses: Love” is a fantasy concoted by delusional losers and story writers. It isn’t real.

Both are correct, Love is nothing more than the brain being stimulated and excited by an overdose of the above chemicals.

Baz says:

05:29pm | 26/10/11

That point arose in England years ago, the High Court held that if you weren’t married, you couldn’t get divorced.

acotrel says:

10:55pm | 26/10/11

@Baz
‘That point arose in England years ago, the High Court held that if you weren’t married, you couldn’t get divorced. ‘

What was Henry the 8th and the split with the catholic church all about ?  Sounds like damned if you do, damned if you don’t ?

Sarah says:

09:19am | 26/10/11

Can-Do will parrott just about anything, regardless of personal beliefs, just to get in power.

I cannot stand QLD ALP and the lot of them need a landslide to save us from their idiocy, but the only reason that the ALP have lasted for so long in QLD is because the QLD LNP are absolutely hopeless and frankly they are STILL hopeless.

I predict that the QLD Party with Katter will make a big showing and we’ll have a minority rule in QLD. Scary thought.

Angry God of Townsville says:

09:49am | 26/10/11

Sarah, you are meant to make this comment on the first response, Haven’t the ALP drilled this distraction of blame the “hopeless LNP” into making sure it hits the first comment. On the punch a comment like this may well end up below the longer comments at the top of the page and nobody will read your “by the numbers” post. Back to HB astroturfing school for you young man, (Because a post like this is posted with a female name to lend a kinder reading by the sisterhood)  Also, Katter is only polling low 20% and as such you will see a majority of preferences flowing to LNP because concerned voters do not want Fraser, Bligh or any other ALP politician to have a jobe by April.

Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo says:

07:53am | 26/10/11

It’s a attempt at a massive deflection - maybe 5th slip or even gully territory

Two Mummies says:

08:22am | 26/10/11

What is it exactly that you object to about gay people having kids? Gay and lesbian couples (and singles) have been fostering kids for years with the blessing of all governments. Gay and lesbian couples have also been raising children for years. My partner and I have a beautiful bright and happy 6 year old. She was brought into this world with love and in our case with a known and involved father (which by the way is the norm not the exception). Her life is exactly like those of her peers in straight families…she goes to school, has friends and playdates, is already writing her Christmas list for Santa…her parents lives are similar to her friends parents….we work, pay taxes, volunteer in the community…

So what exactly do you object to?

Vince says:

09:37am | 26/10/11

@Two Mummies - possibly because some people view the rights of the child as the higher priority, not the rights of the homosexuals.  It is all about you - your rights - not theirs, isn’t it?  Who cares if, in 20 years time, we have a Stolen Generation of people raised by homosexuals who suddenly realise they’ve been shafted?  Their rights don’t matter.

Misanthrope says:

09:45am | 26/10/11

You are right Dash. I have absolutely nothing against homosexuals but I feel that they should not have any right to ‘raise’ a child. A child needs an equal amount of male and female influence growing up.

Dont give me the “What about the children growing up with a single parent” bollocks either. That is irrelevant to this subject.

EJ says:

10:54am | 26/10/11

considering the amount of butch girls I see as partners and feminine men as partners in gay relationships they will have that male/female balance haha

Two Mummies says:

10:57am | 26/10/11

VINCE: How do you figure my child has been “stolen”??? She has not been taken away from her parents or family. What “rights’ do you think she is being denied? She has three wonderful caring parents, two biological and one non-biological.

You’ve obviously never been a parent, when/if you do have children you will realise that it is entirely about what the child needs and wants. As a parent your needs come second to your childs.

Dash says:

11:24am | 26/10/11

I didn’t say I object. I just can’t get my head around how two women or two men having a child goes from being physically impossible to being their right! That to me is a massive leap!

What/who gives them that right? And what makes that right greater than the right of a child to have both a mother and a father?

You don’t want a man, yet you want the “product” (sorry can’t think of a better word) of being with a man? How does that thought process work? Are children commodities that you just go to the local store and order?

I personally think there are not enough men in young children’s life as it is with primary school being dominated by female teachers.

I just haven’t worked all those questions out in my own mind yet.

Rose says:

12:18pm | 26/10/11

Dash, I’m going to try to make this easy for you. The sexual orientation of the parents doesn’t matter, the quality of the parenting is the only thing that does. Lesbian and gay parents are unlikely to live in a vacuum so it’s likely that the kids will get role models from both sexes through involvement in extended family and friendship groups. Although the emphasis should again be on the quality of the role models, not just their gender.
As for the rights of homosexuals (and heterosexuals) to have babies,I think you’re using the wrong word. I do however think homosexuals (and heterosexuals) should be able to accept the responsiblity for raising children.  I think children should have the right to be born into loving, supportive and competent families, unfortunately many children miss out.
Homosexuals can have babies now, it’s no longer impossible, it’s just that they use other ways of having babies, IVF, surrogacy, adoption etc, how the baby came to be is irrelevant. Again, the only thing that matters is that the children are well cared for, and that as a society we do evrything we can to ensure children are nurtured and supported regardless of their family structure. I’m not sure public attacks on homosexual parents or single parents (not you, a generalized comment) etc are going to make children of these parents feel as thoough they are a part of this society.
There are countless studies showing that children with LGBT parents have outcomes as good as any one else.

Two Mummies says:

12:59pm | 26/10/11

DASH: I appreciate that you are trying to understand and work things through. You ask what gives me the ‘right’ to have a child, the same question is valid for anyone whether they are gay or straight. What right did your parents have to create you?

I have just as much ‘right’ to have a child as anyone else….what people are not talking about and should be talking about is ‘responsibility’. What are a parents responsibilities towards that child and quite frankly gender or sexual orientation has nothing to do with how well you deal with your responsibilities as a parent.

Being a responsible parent is a lot more than who a child comes from biologically. Being a responsible parent means making sure your child has lots of role models of both genders, sometimes that means a known involved father (as is the case for a hige number of lesbian couples), sometimes that means making sure the biological father is well out of the picture (as is the case of women fleeing from abusive relationships and situations where the child is abused).

I’m also not sure how you think gay and lesbian parents view their children as a commodity? The decision to have a child is a lot more considered for gay and lesbian couples than it is for straight people.

Vince says:

01:05pm | 26/10/11

@TwoMummies - what has been “stolen” is their rights.  Replaced by yours.  Your right to raise a child trumps the child’s right to have a father and a mother.  I don’t care if you think it doesn’t matter.  What if it does?  What if the child thinks it does?  What if he/she realises at the age of consent that he/she has been forced to live in circumstances that others do not?  How do we explain that to them?  I can just see it:  “Well, you see, 1 in a 100 people are homosexual and a small percentage of these people want to have kids, even though they are of the same sex and can’t obviously have kids, so we decided that, in all fairness to them, a small percentage of kids such as yourself would have to be raised by homosexuals while the 99.9% rest of us would not”.

neo says:

01:22pm | 26/10/11

I watched a story on a lesbian couple raising a boy in the US, and the kid is like 8 and he is growing up wanting to be a girl and wanting hormone blockers and a sex change and all that.

Now, I know it happens in normal families too sometimes, and if it’s a case of one in many, that’s fine. But if this becomes a trend, we most definitely shouldn’t allow same sex couples to raise kids, because the kid I saw had some severe mental problems. Again, possibly not as a result of his guardians, as mental illness can strike in normal families too.

Dash says:

01:46pm | 26/10/11

Two Mummies:

My parents had each other to create me. They had the biological means to create a child. You don’t. And they didn’t choose to give up the biological means as part of their lifestyle choice. You have. Big difference.

My question was how does something physically impossible suddenly become someones right and where does that right come from? You haven’t answered that for me at all.

You say, “I have just as much ‘right’ to have a child as anyone else” - once again, how did you get that right and why do you feel that ability wasn’t forsaken because you don’t want to be with a man? Are there no implications of your lifestyle choice?

You say ” The decision to have a child is a lot more considered for gay and lesbian couples than it is for straight people”. I say that’s a load of bullshit! As a father, I can tell you that I find that suggestion offensive. You and your partner are no better than me just because neither of you has anything swinging between your legs! You choose to live the life you do and I respect that but don’t you dare suggest to me that you are a better or more considered parent because of it! My children come from parents who made the decision to have them. They come from us, not from someone else, not from a test tube or a bloke up the street we did a deal with. They grow up in that knowledge not in the knowledge that they were manufactured as an accessory.

Some people believe a child has a right to be brought up in a home with both a mother and a father. Some people believe that right is greater than your right and that right should be protected by the law and that children should be protected from becoming fashion accessories for gay people. Some people think that way.

Two Mummies says:

01:57pm | 26/10/11

VINCE: Do you also bleat about the ‘rights’ of children born into poverty? Why do we let poor people have children when we know the children will go without? Interestingly the same arguments used to be made about aboriginal peoples rights to have children!

You say “Your right to raise a child trumps the child’s right to have a father and a mother. ” My child and the majority of children born into gay and lesbian families do have a mother and a father. Most gay couples work hard to make sure their children know both biological parents. For those who are unable to or choose not to they go to great lengths to provide appropriate role models. Lots of children in born of straight people grow up without knowing or having a relationship with one of their parents but I don’t hear you bleating about taking away their right to have children.

Having children is not a right its a responsibility.

And what if your child realises at the age of 18 that you are an idiot and have attempted over the years to instill homophobia in them….what then…can they sue you?

Little Joe says:

02:10pm | 26/10/11

@ Two Mummies, Vince and Dash.

My right to have children?? What a rediculous arguement and devicive statement!!! Children are not pets. You never own your children.

Parenting is about ensuring the rights to your children. Ensuring a healthy environment that provides food, shelter, safety, peace, love, education etc etc for your children.

Parenting is about giving and not counting the cost. It is a 24/7 job that too many parents try to shortcut, too busy feeling sorry for themselves because they can’t travel or buy a new car ..... or go to the pub and have a few smokes

The responsibilities of parenting can be done by one person ..... but it is difficult. I believe that we have enough evidence of children raised by single parents to prove both sides of this arguement. So two is better than one in most cases.

If a same-sex couple can provide this environment and can fulfill their responsibilities as parents, then they should be allowed to adopt children. Sorry but I do not believe IVF should be provided to same sex-couples, but then again I do not believe in the way IVF is practised today.

RyaN says:

02:29pm | 26/10/11

@Little Joe: Apparently they are considered pets by this certain group:
http://www.news.com.au/national/lesbian-foster-couple-put-six-year-old-boy-in-girls-clothes-and-post-photos-on-facebook/story-e6frfkvr-1226134422557

http://www.news.com.au/world/well-stop-puberty-so-tommy-can-become-tammy/story-e6frfkyi-1226169281540

neo says:

02:48pm | 26/10/11

That Tommy/Tammy kid is the one I was talking about. That is one messed up kid, he should seek psychological help before it is too late.

Bev says:

03:40pm | 26/10/11

@RyaN
Plus you can add the legal tangle where the father was taken off the birth certificate in place of the “social” mum in NSW and all the other legal shit fights taking place overseas.  I am sure those children will not thank their 2 mums when the grow up.  Legalize homosexual marriage and you can multiply the number of troubled children by thousands.

Bev says:

03:49pm | 26/10/11

Rose says:01:18pm | 26/10/11
There are countless studies showing that children with LGBT parents have outcomes as good as any one else.

I don’t accept that.  The only study that has been linked in the PUNCH was a small study by the homosexual lobby.  This study is flawed in that the data was taken from a small group and the talked about tenuous pluses, any minuses just didn’t seem to get a mention (as they probably did not look)  though in any balanced study there will be both. No data comes up all white but surprise surprise this one did.

Vince says:

03:50pm | 26/10/11

@TwoMummies and @Rose - do you guys remember the nature vs nurture movement of the 60’s and 70’s?  Every child psychologist was convinced that socialisation was the key to human behaviour.  That we were “girls” or “boys” only because we were socialised to be that way.  We now look back and laugh.  “What were we thinking?” we say.  I think the whole gay parenthood thing is very similar to this.  “But homosexuals can’t be parents” we say.  “Of course they can.  It’s all about the quality of parents, nothing to do with biology, you homophobe”. 

Oh, such fools we are.

Anon says:

04:07pm | 26/10/11

Wow Ryan,, two stories.. Did you know 1.25 million kids in the US died in 2006 from abuse by their parents?  That’s 4 kids a day. 

If two stories are all you can find then you’re sort of proving homosexuals make great parents.

Bev says:

04:28pm | 26/10/11

Two Mummies says:02:57pm | 26/10/11

Most gay couples work hard to make sure their children know both biological parents. For those who are unable to or choose not to they go to great lengths to provide appropriate role models.

Do they I suspect in many cases no.  As court cases are beginning to show. In any case aving a man drop in for a sunday BBQ is not an the same as a fathers constant presence and never will be. In any case I would suggest that the way the baby is conceived in a great many cases the father is not involved except as a spermbank/donor.

Lots of children in born of straight people grow up without knowing or having a relationship with one of their parents but I don’t hear you bleating about taking away their right to have children.

No but increasingly people are questioning whether single never marriad mothers should be paid to have children and that we should look at marrige and find ways to strengthen it.  Getting rid of no fault divorce would be a good start.

Having children is not a right its a responsibility.
Yes but children have rights its all layed out by the UN.

And what if your child realises at the age of 18 that you are an idiot and have attempted over the years to instill homophobia in them….what then…can they sue you?

What if the child thinks there upbringing by two mums has denied them a normal childhood can they sue?

Bev says:

04:38pm | 26/10/11

@Anon Rubbish and you know it.  Show me the number of children born to hetrosexual parents and the percentage of those children abused.
Then do the same for homosexual parents.  Then compare the two. otherwise as I said you are blowing hot air.

Bev says:

04:46pm | 26/10/11

Vince says:04:50pm | 26/10/11

@TwoMummies and @Rose - do you guys remember the nature vs nurture movement of the 60’s and 70’s?  Every child psychologist was convinced that socialisation was the key to human behaviour.

No entirely many child psychologists didn’t but they were shouted down by feminists.

Since there is a close link between feminists and the gay lobby the same specious arguments are reemerging now.  It’s was predictable and will I think wind up with the same results. In the mean time children will suffer.

Fiona says:

06:14pm | 26/10/11

Dash, I’m sure I’ll get flamed for this, but men are (at least partly) to blame for males not being in kids lives. Men are not picking primary teaching at uni and when they do, they seem to rise very quickly through the education system. There’ll certainly be enough male role models when a child is raised by 2 gay men and the “end product” is supplied, to quite a bit of inconvenience, by a female. I think gay couples have to put considerably more thought into having a child than hetero couples anyway, including considering role models of the opposite sex.

RyaN says:

07:25pm | 26/10/11

@Anon: Ah two wrongs make a right now do they? So will you agree then that this will only add to the problems there are already? More children suffering where it could have been prevented?

Erick says:

04:17am | 27/10/11

@Anon - “Did you know 1.25 million kids in the US died in 2006 from abuse by their parents?  That’s 4 kids a day.”

That is one of the silliest comments I’ve ever seen. Four kids a day is 1,460 a year, not 1,250,000!

And even that smaller number is out by a factor of four. Here are the real statistics:

“over the 30-year period from 1976 to 2005… The average number of children up to 5 years of age known to be murdered by their parents in the United States was 344 per year (range, 246 to 426).”

Get a grip!

fairsfair says:

03:08pm | 27/10/11

I’m sorry matt but you have completly miss understood what I was saying and I don’t have the energy to further explain myself.

I am so over this discussion - as is most of moderate Australia.

Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo says:

07:54am | 26/10/11

Cool. Let’s legalise it all… problem sorted.

Mahhrat says:

08:23am | 26/10/11

@Erick, the children issues around incestuous relationships need to be resolved, but yes, I see no logical reason why not.  Freedom of choice, and all that.

James1 says:

09:16am | 26/10/11

I can see why polygamy and polyandry should be legalised and allowed - I have no problem with either of those.  Incest is another matter altogether though. 

Why do you think they are morally equivalent exactly, Erick?  Can you explain your reasoning for us?

Matt says:

09:25am | 26/10/11

Polygamous marriage is already legally recognised in Australia.. I don’t understand the incest thing, but whatever floats your boat..

Erick says:

10:23am | 26/10/11

@James1 - The reasoning should be clear. If gay marriage should be recognised because there’s no reason to oppose marriage between consenting adults, then so should incestuous marriage between adults.

It’s also been argued that the ability to reproduce is irrelevant to marriage, so that shouldn’t affect the question.

@Matt - I was unaware that polygamous marriage was legally recognised as “marriage” in Australia. Could you please show me a link?

Jane says:

10:27am | 26/10/11

@Erick - do you realise how offensive that is? gay marriage IS NOT comparable with polygamy and polandry.

acotrel says:

10:38am | 26/10/11

@Erick
’ If gay marriage should be recognised because there’s no reason to oppose marriage between consenting adults, then so should incestuous marriage between adults.’

It didn’t seem to worry the Pharohs too much ! And our royal family gets pretty close to it !

James1 says:

10:45am | 26/10/11

Fair call Erick, on those grounds.  I don’t agree that they are equivalent though, because a homosexual or (non-incestuous) polyamorous relationship cannot produce inbred offspring, while an incestuous one can.  Its not so much that the production of children is irrelevant to me - its more the type of children a relationship can (or more specifically, cannot) produce.  Gay relationships cannot produce inbred children.  Thus, I would maintain, there is an actual substantive practical difference between them that needs to be taken into account by policy-makers.

James1 says:

10:58am | 26/10/11

Jane, your reasoning on that escapes me.  If three or more adults consent to a polyamorous relationship, why not have that officially recognised?  How is that offensive?

AdamC says:

11:11am | 26/10/11

“@Erick - do you realise how offensive that is? gay marriage IS NOT comparable with polygamy and polandry. “

Of course it is, Jane. If consenting adults wish to enter into plural marriages which they find satisfying and emotionally fulfilling, why shouldn’t they be able to? Why are you denying them marriage equality while supporting marriage equality for others?

I would agree that incest is a completely different matter, but polygamy and polyandry simply are not.

fairsfair says:

11:13am | 26/10/11

To be the devils advocate James1…

Access to fertility aides (particularly for women in homosexual relationships) does produce children. Though genetically healthy, they are then raised in a household that deviates from the norm.

Can I just say, I don’t think I agree with that, but I keep going back to the recent episode of Insight which was all about surrogacy and sperm donation. There was a man on there that was a product of donated sperm and a single mum. He was of the opinion that his mother was extremely selfish. He had no idea of his own “self” and longed to know where he came from. He was pretty messed up, had started an online community that was exploding with members who were born into this world under the same circumstance. I wonder if the emotional damage of this situation is on par with the physical/genetic conditions brought about by incest?

Can I just say again, the above opinions does not sit comfortably with me, but I can see some valid reason in it. I am a bit sick and tired of adults reproducing at all costs without any thought for the longterm mental health of the actual children.

I see marriage as a social construct and recognition of sexuality in a legal sense is clearly also underpinned by social norms. So I see validity in the links Erick makes. Homosexuality was not at all socially acceptable in the 1950s and was likely viewed to be worse than incest. Incest has been popular at times throughout history as has homosexuality. It is all just social cycle and I don’t think we the current generation/society have any power to stop the pendulum from swinging. In 200 years - who knows - maybe we will be back to 1950s attitudes toward eveything.

James1 says:

11:35am | 26/10/11

Yeah, fertility assistance makes everything more complicated, doesn’t it?  I’m not sure where I stand on the situations you raise fairs, to be honest.  I can see the issues with voluntary single parenthood, and I can totally understand why that fellow and others like him are upset.  To my mind, there should be far more restrictions placed on access to IVF than currently exist. 

While I still believe that, incest and other clearly immoral and unlawful relationships excluded, people should be free to pursue marriage with whoever they want.  The libertarian in me can see no other option that is consistent with conservative concepts of individual freedom.  But stupid reality keeps interfering with my principles.  Reality is always doing that.

Rich says:

11:50am | 26/10/11

@erick - that arguement is dead. Same sex partners are already recognised by law - their acts and their companionship are not illegal. As a result, they want same rights.

Matt says:

11:57am | 26/10/11

What, your google broken is it Erick?  I’d say get off your sister and go look for yourself, but here it is..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_Australia
However, much like the situation in the United Kingdom, polygamous marriages conducted in jurisdictions that legally recognize and perform such unions may be legally valid in Australia for some purposes.[

I didn’t say performed, I said legally recognised..

Erick says:

12:26pm | 26/10/11

@Matt - Nice bit of selective quoting there. Let’s look at the part you left out:

“Polygamous marriages may not be performed in Australia, and the practice of polygamy is prohibited in the country.[1] A person who marries another person, knowing that the previous marriage is still subsisting, commits an offence of bigamy under sect 94 of the Marriage Act 1961, which carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment, and the second marriage is void.[2]”

Obviously it is not true that polygamous marriages are given the same recognition as other marriages in Australia, and you’ve been quite dishonest in your claim. But then, I wouldn’t expect honesty from someone who resorts to unprovoked insults like you do.

Erick says:

12:31pm | 26/10/11

@Rich - Your point is irrelevant. Incestuous and polyamorous relationships have exactly the same claims to legitimacy as do gay ones.

@James1 - Reproduction doesn’t really come into it. An incestuous couple could use contraception, or adopt children, just like a gay one. Alternately, they could use sperm donors, or even (in the near future) DNA screening to avoid genetic abnormalities.

There is absolutely no reason why incestuous marriage should not be permitted, on the same grounds as gay marriage.

Erick says:

12:32pm | 26/10/11

@Jane - Why is it offensive? What’s wrong with consenting adults being able to have any kind of relationship that they want?

fairsfair says:

12:38pm | 26/10/11

Totally agree James1. It just isn’t black and white.

I agree with the notion raised on Q&A this week. The state should be completely out of marriag for everyone. That is a debate I would like to see happen.

Matt seriously - uncalled for. Erick may have strong views that polarise readers - but he never attacks people personally.

AdamC says:

12:40pm | 26/10/11

Fairs, I regard singles who use fertility treatment to have children as selfish. At the very least, who looks after the child if anything happens to them?

James1 says:

01:04pm | 26/10/11

I respectfully disagree Erick.  Incest is different, and should be treated as such.  It carries potential risks that the other forms of relationship do not, and regardless of whether these risks are realised, they exist in incestuous relationships but not in homosexual and polyamorous ones and policy-makers must recognise and account for this.  This difference is important, and there is a reason why incest remains illegal, but polyamory and homosexuality do not.

I note you call someone a hypocrite for making a similar argument below.  However, I think that incestual and bestial relationships need to be treated differently because they are different to homosexuality and polyamory.  I am not saying we should treat equivalent things differently, rather that unique things call for unique treatment.  Where things are equivalent, equivalent treatment is in order.  Incest is not the same as being gay, and policy should not be made on the assumption that they are. 

Thus, I would hope you do not think me a hypocrite, even should you disagree with my contention.

Matt says:

01:16pm | 26/10/11

Erick, you stated yourself - legally recognised.  Polygamy is legally recognised. You didn’t state ‘the same recognition of other marriages’ in your original comment, so no, I wasn’t being dishonest at all..

And what insult?  I assume as you’re barracking for incestuous marriage you wouldn’t be insulted by my comment…

fairsfair - what’s your point?  Erick is for incest so that shouldn’t be an insult.  Wait, are you saying it’s insulting if someone assumes you’re incestuous because they’re championing it?

egg says:

02:30pm | 26/10/11

@erick, aw, you’re so adorable when you’re using strawman arguments to deflect from the issue. *pinches your rosy cheeks*

if your argument is really that by allowing gays to marry, a precedent is set which means everyone (including multiple partners/related people)can marry, then should straight marriage be banned? seems to me they shouldn’t be allowed to set this dangerous precedent either, right?

fairsfair says:

02:43pm | 26/10/11

@Matt, where is he championing incest? He is merely stating that in the context of this article being that all human relationships are magnificent (check out the headline) its difficult to then see the difference between an incestuous relationship between two consenting adults and any other kind of relationship between two consenting adults.

I personally don’t agree with that because I have many gay friends who are in longterm relationships and I think that they should be allowed to marry if they want to - but I can see the logic behind it. It is all a social construct as marrying “in the family” has been promoted in some periods of history.

@AdamC - I totally agree. I think people who *choose* to be single parents are very selfish. The ethics behind fertility treatments (particularly for single women in advancing years) is a mindfield. If I could not fall pregnant without assistance, I would not have children of my own. I have been told by many that I am a horrific person for having this opinon though. How dare I.

neo says:

02:44pm | 26/10/11

Erick’s argument is logically sound. Putting aside our natural repulsion to incest and polygamy (much like some people’s natural repulsion to homosexuality!), these types of marriages should logically be treated the same.

I think last time we all engaged in this debate, we have determined that the difference between gay marriages and incestuous/polygamous marriages is that there are not many people campaigning for the latter, while there are plenty campaigning for the former.

James1 says:

03:11pm | 26/10/11

And what of the issue I raised neo?  Of all the types of relationships you mention, only one can result in inbreeding, therefore one is a class apart from the others.  The fact that it wouldn’t in many, if not most cases is not relevant - it still possesses a potential for inbreeding not contained in polyamorous and homosexual relationships.

EJ says:

03:32pm | 26/10/11

@AdamC - Godparents? Aunts and Uncles? whoever is named in the will? I assume it would work much the same as if both parents were driving home from a function back to pick up the kids from the sitters or grandparents and they have an accident and both die, the kids would go to the closest relative able to look after them, if they’re old enough they can have a say as to who it is, it’s not that complicated

neo says:

03:33pm | 26/10/11

James,

A few different things you can say I guess. Starting with the relatively small chance of birth defects (albeit higher than in non related couples). If the incestuous couple use contraception, they are no different to a same sex couple (apart from the less than 1% chance of contraception failing).

Another thing is, homosexual relationships may have other problems with child raising, such as bringing up the child in an abnormal situation where his mental health may be affected (see Tommy/Tammy). Maybe this chance is really small, akin to the small chance of contraception failing / birth defects being present.

I think for the sake of our logical argument, the inbreeding issue isn’t that great a consideration, and in line with problems that homosexuality of the guardians can cause to a child. IMHO anyway.

Erick says:

03:35pm | 26/10/11

@James1 - I think you aren’t being strictly logical on this issue, but I would not call you a hypocrite. You are sincere, even if I think you’re not right. We may have to agree to disagree.

@Matt & egg - Trolls gonna troll, haters gonna hate. You are not to be taken seriously.

Matt says:

03:40pm | 26/10/11

fairsfair, One would assume if you bring it up, you would be for it, not against it, especially in the context of allowing one relationship over another.  The fact that incest is illegal has escaped Erick’s and others attention, not to mention the fact that equating two related people having a relationship with two homosexuals is not really a comparison at all..

Being homosexual is not the same as having a relationship with your sister/mother/brother.  Most people wouldn’t even consider the comparison, I suspect Erick and others that have used this argument are simply hiding their bigotry behind this argument, too afraid to say what they really think.  Why else bring it up when the comparisons are obviously dissimilar?

And let’s not forget the Adelaide mother/father relationship not too long ago, one child with problems and one already dead.  When so many times people scream ‘won’t somebody think of the children’ they seem to forget the catchcry when the argument suits them, again it’s an obvious reason incestual relationships are illegal.  (and yes I’m aware once upon a time sodomy was illegal..)

When the majority of the population is behind incest, polygamy and polyandry then yes, legally recognise them.  To say if you allow one then you must allow all of them on the same grounds - when it’s not the same grounds at all - is childish and is hiding the true meaning behind your argument.

James1 says:

03:52pm | 26/10/11

neo, I separate these two issues when I discuss them.  Mostly because if it were up to me I would place way more restrictions on access to IVF (in line with fairs’ proposal, I would ban it for singles, people over 40, etc), and as such the only way children would be involved in homosexual marriage would be via previous heterosexual relationships.  To me, the discussion of gay marriage is a separate discussion to that regarding gay married couples’ access to IVF and any resultant children.

The fact stands that incestuous relationships are the only ones we are discussing which have the potential to result in inbreeding.  The fact of the matter is this: if they use contraception, they are about the same as non-incestuous couples; if they don’t they are in a completely different category.  It is the latter consideration, the worst case scenario that matters, not the best case.  This makes them different to the others.  This further undermines the logic that an incestuous relationship is equivalent to a homosexual or polyamorous relationship, as well as explaining why incest remains illegal but homosexuality and polyamory do not.

I have several functions to attend this evening, and as such this will be my last post on this thread.  Thanks everyone for a very stimulating and civilised exchange of views (except Matt - that thing about Erick was uncalled for) - such discussions as this are increasingly rare on The Punch.

fairsfair says:

04:01pm | 26/10/11

Matt - I get that, but it wasn’t all that long ago that homosexuality was illegal. That is what I am getting at with it being a social construct. And that is essentially what Erick is saying too - again, I don’t strictly agree, but it is purely the socialisation of myself that says homosexuality = ok, incest = yukky and illegal. If I was born in 1950s Australia I would have also said homosexuality = yukky and illegal.

For that reason, I can not see why it is such a stretch to not apply the same notions to incest when the subtext of this article applied - it is a human relationship, therefore a good thing.

James1, again playing devils advocate - what if one person in the relationship was barron or submitted to steralisation? If the prospect of physical reproduction was removed from the equation, would it then be the same thing? I am only asking that because I know if a group of incestuous couples began lobbying for equal rights, this type of question could potentially come up.

Semi Concerned Citizen says:

04:04pm | 26/10/11

Matt,
Could it be as simple as this
on the left side we have a union between man and wife as the common legal form of marriage here.
on the right side we have all the illegal forms of marriage. Incest, homosexual, bestial, poly and so forth.
I think all groups on the illegal side could offer resonable cases as to why the law should be changed in their favour. If you choose one how do you not recognize the others?

fairsfair says:

04:10pm | 26/10/11

Oh and on the other note Matt, I am in favour of homosexual rights but I am not homosexual. I also believe the OWS people have a right to hold their protests, but I don’t agree with what they are saying.

Your statement that because Erick is using incest as a point of argument means he must be a supporter and even a practiser of incest is completely wrong.

LJ Dots says:

05:13pm | 26/10/11

A particularly good thread here, my thanks to all the contributors.

Matt says:

05:21pm | 26/10/11

fairsfair and semi, I don’t think all sides of ‘illegal’ marriage could offer reasonable arguments for their cases. Each case should be considered individually, none of them are the same or should be ‘legally recognised for exactly the same reasons’. 

If Erick didn’t want to be thought of as incestous why’d he bring it up?  Where are the polls stating the majority of people are in favour of incestual marriage?  That’s my point.  Apples and oranges, different things.  I called him out on it and both you and Erick said I was insulting him - yet you use it as an argument against same sex marriage?  I don’t get your logic, and Erick I don’t mind the odd bit of trolling but this time I was serious, I don’t get the comparison of incest and homosexuality and you yourself couldn’t explain your reasoning.

While it may be easy for you to say ‘There is absolutely no reason why incestuous marriage should not be permitted, on the same grounds as gay marriage.’ - it seems your actual reasoning behind it is unexplainable.  Seems shutting people down is easier than trying to explain yourself..

Either way we don’t have to agree.  I’ll still call people out when they use this argument as I don’t get the comparison, and you still use it as an argument..

Semi Concerned Citizen says:

07:07pm | 26/10/11

Matt,

Each minority group can dress their arguement up whichever way they please. The issue is one group(homosexual) wants to change the alw to benefit them.

How can you say that the other (poly or incestuous) cases are any less justified. Each of these marriages could obtain children in the same fashion as a homosexual relationship, and as everyone states as long as you raise them right whose to say these relationships are any lesser.

egg says:

08:10pm | 26/10/11

oh gosh, really? i just won’t sleep tonight, erick, knowing you don’t take me seriously. what a bummer…

but back to the topic at hand: don’t worry, i won’t hold it against you that you have no answer. just keep bringing up incest and polygamy, that’s the way to make a point.

AdamC says:

08:15pm | 26/10/11

EJ, sure, the car crash scenario is possible, but it isn’t at all likely. People falling ill, being injured, becoming depressed, these things happen all the time. We invented families for a reason. Single parents are less able to raise a child than a couple is - end of story. Are you really arguing that one loving parent is just as good as two?

fairsfair says:

09:51am | 27/10/11

Matt, I have explained the reasoning of it more than once and I don’t understand why you don’t get it. You don’t have to agree with it, but you say you don’t get it…

You are the one who told Erick to “get off his sister”. You don’t see how that is inappropriate in the middle of legitimate discussion? You don’t see how that could be interpreted as making an adult discussion personal? Where did Erick personally attack you for your perceived sexuality?

Agree to disagree - I have no issue with that.

Matt says:

01:13pm | 27/10/11

semi i didn’t say that at all, don’t put words in my mouth.. In fact I said - ‘When the majority of the population is behind incest, polygamy and polyandry then yes, legally recognise them.’ I also didn’t say anything about children..

fairs, you haven’t explained the reasoning, you’ve simply said two consenting adults in a relationship are the same.  I take that to mean you think a married couple is the same as a brother and sister in a sexual relationship is the same as two homosexuals in a relationship is the same as a man and three women in a relationship is the same as a woman and five men in a relationship - but you haven’t explained why you think that… I personally don’t think it’s the same and thought it was obvious.  The same institution is not going to suit all of them is it?  How about divorce in polygamous relationships? What about children in an incestous one?  Erick mentioned in another comment make them wear protection but would you police it? Who would check?  It’s a ridiculous assumption…

I didn’t say Erick attacked me at all for my ‘preceived sexuality’... What’s with putting words in my mouth?  The sister thing was funny though - what sort of wanker demands a link when they’re obviously on a computer and can check the facts easily themselves?  He deserved it…

Anna C says:

09:02am | 26/10/11

I agree with Attila. There are bigger fish to fry.

Daryl Saal says:

11:04am | 26/10/11

So BJ, using your logic every stay at home mum with a husband (legal or defacto) who is earning high wages should be able to claim full Centrelink benefits?

BJ says:

08:08pm | 26/10/11

Nope, only if they aren’t married. Most people who shack up still expect their partner to pay their way.

Bluey says:

08:59am | 26/10/11

Can I point out that many lesbians have children - and the percentage of gay men with children is increasing.  Before you start - sociological studies have constantly shown that the kids turn out NORMAL - no increases in anti-social behaviour and just as likely to be gay themselves as children raised by heterosexual parents.  Just because you need bits from both sexes to consieve a child, doesn’t make it a ‘relationship’ - it’s just a biological act. - Commitment, love and stability are more critical for the child’s development - and this doesn’t depend on the sex of the parents (also proven).

From an contribuion point of view - men earn more than women - a sad and proven fact.  SO a double household of 2 men pay more taxes & spend more at local shops (stimulating the economy).  Whilst women are the lower earners, many are in nurturing professions - e.g. nurses, social workers, teachers, child care workers.  Are you saying that people that make these types of contributions to our society - both monetarily and sociologically, SHOULD by right of who they love, be discriminated against??

Blazes says:

09:52am | 26/10/11

@Bluey, you have completely missed my point.

Marriage is a recognition of a relationship. The justification for government being involved in recognising certain types of relationships is that those relationships can contribute things to society which others physically cannot. A heterosexual relationship can produce children due to its nature, all other types cannot. And I think you’ll find that people who are married find coitus far more than just a biological act - it is all about commitment, love, and stability.

In regards to raising children, I think you’ll find that the social science is overwhelming in finding that children, especially boys, are greatly benefited by having a father in their lives And the sexual development/health of girls is aided by living with a father as well. Also, mothers can contribute to a child’s upbringing in ways which a father cannot. So opposite sex-parenting (ideally biological) in the way that it is complementary is the ideal and even though some gay parents are probably better than some biological parents, that doesn’t change the ideal. We should continue to recognise and encourage the ideal (such as through marriage).

And actually, if you have a look, you’ll find that the numerous studies supporting gay parenting tend to be flawed due to small sample sizes, self-reporting, etc.

Bev says:

10:44am | 26/10/11

Blazes says:10:52am | 26/10/11

And actually, if you have a look, you’ll find that the numerous studies supporting gay parenting tend to be flawed due to small sample sizes, self-reporting, etc.

I endorse everything you say and in particular the above comment.  The homosexual lobby has borrowed heavily from feminism who have produced an avalanche of studies over the years to support their agenda. Much of it flawed and based on circular reference to earlier flawed studies until you build an edifice based on questionable foundations.

AliceC says:

11:26am | 26/10/11

My husband and I (he is now deceased) never started a family. Therefore, should our marriage have never been recognised?

We married each other because we loved each other, not for the sake of starting a family.

Blazes says:

12:17pm | 26/10/11

AliceC
a) we shouldn’t define marriage based on exceptions.
b) a heterosexual relationship is the type of relationship (because it involves coitus) that can naturally produce children. There is a world of difference between an infertile heterosexual couple or a heterosexual couple which doesn’t wish to reproduce, both of which don’t/can’t use their the reproductive system which defines the type of relationship, and a same-sex relationship, which is simply the absence of a reproduction system.

HappyCynic says:

12:24pm | 26/10/11

Umm what about all those gay men and women who don’t realise they’re gay until later in life, after they’re married with kids?  People make as much contribution to society as they choose to.

Personally, I think we have enough people on this boring little planet as it is, society can go f**k itself if it thinks I should breed, so can the economy.  As long as people enjoy their lives without intentionally harming anyone else all else is irrelevant.  If gay people want to marry and have kids, and there is technology that makes this possible, if they can offer a home that is every bit as loving and secure as any other home, then who the hell are you to say they can’t?

Your opinion is only relevant to you and how you live your life.  Gay marriage may have a lower value to you but to others (usually those who are affected by your devaluation of their private relationship) it’s priceless and it’s your opinion that’s completely worthless.  So why is it you’re allowed to inflict your values on others?  And how is that fair or reasonable?

Erick says:

12:45pm | 26/10/11

@Bluey - “From an contribuion point of view - men earn more than women - a sad and proven fact.”

Why is it sad? If women choose to work fewer hours, enter lower-paid professions, or take more time off, that’s their right. Are you criticising them for their choices?

Blazes says:

12:52pm | 26/10/11

@HappyCynic marriage is public policy, where the government is involved. As long as that is the case, we should make sure it serves the public interest and everyone has a right to discuss what definition does this in the best way. In my opinion, gay marriage is nonsensical and undermines the public purpose of marriage; in yours, it doesn’t. So what?

It is an oxymoron to say that the legal definition of marriage is about individual rights and not about the social good.

Bev says:

03:29pm | 26/10/11

HappyCynic says:01:24pm | 26/10/11
Your opinion is only relevant to you and how you live your life.  Gay marriage may have a lower value to you but to others (usually those who are affected by your devaluation of their private relationship) it’s priceless and it’s your opinion that’s completely worthless.

Did you actually read what you wrote?  You tell him his opinion only applies to him.  Then you tell him his opinion is worthless.  Teasing out this spagettii says to me you value your opinion and such everybody elses arrangements and opinions are less than yours and they should shutup as in your opinion the do not have the right to voice an opinion about anything.

HappyCynic says:

03:31pm | 26/10/11

@Blazes

Erm if marriage serves the public interest (it doesn’t, it’s between 2 people and on occasion, G-d or various other deities, governments merely acknowledge the existence of married people) then all qualified people, regardless of gender, religion, race, sexuality etc. should have access to it because that is the public.  What you’re suggesting marriage is does not serve the public since some 5% to 10% of the population is excluded.  All it serves, according to you, is what’s known as the tyranny of the majority, where if you’re not some boring white, anglo-saxon protestant then you’re not normal.

Blazes says:

04:05pm | 26/10/11

Happycynic You obviously haven’t read what I wrote (I don’t think you even read what you wrote!). The fact that you’re resorting to personal attacks (I’m not protestant and I’m not Anglo-Saxon, FYI) is a testament to how intellectually embarrassing your case is.

As I’ve pointed out, marriage defined as it is now serves the public interest, and changing the definition to accommodate other types of relationships would mean the institution being weakened and losing its significance.

Bev says:

04:55pm | 26/10/11

Bluey says:09:59am | 26/10/11

Before you start - sociological studies have constantly shown that the kids turn out NORMAL - no increases in anti-social behaviour and just as likely to be gay themselves as children raised by heterosexual parents. 

See my other posts.  Studies have not proved that. Not any well accepted reliable ones are out there.

- Commitment, love and stability are more critical for the child’s development - and this doesn’t depend on the sex of the parents (also proven).

Again no that argument has been well and truly debunked.  Both parents mum and dad are best.

Astrosodi says:

06:26pm | 26/10/11

Hi Blazes—Was just reading through the replies too, so sorry if my post bundles up a whole heap of comments/replies. I guess a simplified version of the public policy behind marriage is that it creates a family unit (with or without children) based on two people accepting to support and love each other for life. The benefit to the public that goes with that recognition has been proven in a number of studies—benefits to physical health, mental health, financial (less burden on social security (uneployment) and also medical costs (care for each other rather than go itno healthcare facilities that cost the community). these benefits to the community will also arise from recognition of same-sex couples (albeit as civil unions, not marriages), because committed couples operate to provide support, care, stability that must otherwise be provided by the community at their cost. If it means less people in older age relying on publicly funded services, and instead getting more ‘free’ support and care from a ‘civil partner’, that’s a good thing for the community, right?

Fiona says:

06:41pm | 26/10/11

Blazes, I have issues with Your quote “you’ll find that people who are married find coitus far more than just a biological act - it is all about love, commitment and stability”. Go tell that to all those people in defacto relationships, particularly given such a high divorce rate.

Markus says:

12:47pm | 26/10/11

I wonder if anyone picked up on the irony of legally recognising defacto relationships when they passed those laws…

Fiona says:

06:45pm | 26/10/11

Would you have us return to pre no fault divorce days? Where someone has to point the finger at the other/blame the other party? Divorces can be acrimonious enough as it is.

Outraged says:

01:40pm | 26/10/11

Amen!

I am a gay male and you couldn’t pay me to get married! And all my male, gay friends shudder at the thought of being stuck with only one person for 70+ years!

Meanwhile, all my lesbians friends screech about being “discriminated against” because they can’t shack up with their latest eff-buddy and call it “Marriage”. They all want kids too.

It seems all girls still want a wedding and to be “Princess-For-A-Day”...regardless if they are gay or straight…it is something ingrained into girls from when they are very young…whereas all men view Marriage as a ball-and-chain/end-of-your-social-life…

EJ says:

02:59pm | 26/10/11

@Outraged - I would like to disagree with that, I am a female and have no intention of getting married, it’s outdated and the reasons it was brought in (in my opinion) simply do not exist anymore, women can work and support themselves, I have no need for a man to take care of me financially and I really don’t need that piece of paper to validate my relationships

Bev says:

04:02pm | 26/10/11

EJ says:03:59pm | 26/10/11

@Outraged - I would like to disagree with that, I am a female and have no intention of getting married, it’s outdated and the reasons it was brought in (in my opinion) simply do not exist anymore,

Fine as far as it goes but if children enter the picture it is a whole new ball game is it not?

EJ says:

04:58pm | 26/10/11

@Bev - why would it be? there is no longer the stigma of ‘bastards’, just because I am not married or going to get married doesn’t mean I can’t have kids with a partner, the lack of wedding ring doesn’t make me instantly infertile until that band is put on my finger

Bev says:

05:39pm | 26/10/11

EJ says:05:58pm | 26/10/11
@Bev - why would it be? there is no longer the stigma of ‘bastards’, just because I am not married or going to get married doesn’t mean I can’t have kids with a partner,

True but a recent study reported in the media (no I have not read the whole study) Showed all things being equal married couples versus defacto couples produced different results with children from married couples doing better.  They don’t know why this true but it is interesting and further research may find why this is so.

Erick says:

12:38pm | 26/10/11

@Muchless - I call bullshit. Any kind of relationship can be abusive. Also, any kind of relationship can be non-abusive.

“Incestuous relationships are incredibly damaging, exploitative and traumatic to one person in that relationship.”

People who don’t like gays could say the same thing about gay marriage. People who hate men could say the same thing about heterosexual marriage, and often do.

You are a hypocrite, because you apply different standards to different relationships.

Ali K says:

01:56pm | 26/10/11

@ Muchless I think Erick is having a dig at the idea with the incest comment but I do think if we recognise gay marriage that a polyigimist marriage should also be recognised or a close non sexual freindship. Obviously in the open and inclusive society that we live in we should recognise all legal relationships as a union of sorts and should allow them equal rights. We cannot judge if 2 friend want to adopt a child, who is to say the they cannot provide the love and care as a hetro or gay couple. Even 2 brothers of 2 sisters should also have the right to adopt.

Markus says:

02:38pm | 26/10/11

Muchless cynical, why do I get the distinct impression you have ‘consenting adult incestuous relationship’ confused with ‘child molestation’...?

James1 says:

09:18am | 26/10/11

Yeah, but before they suffered from other stuff.  Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Kika says:

10:33am | 26/10/11

What’s the alternative? Campbell Newman? The LNP have no direction, no policy, no nothing. I think we’ll be stuck with Labor again.

Tanya says:

11:25am | 26/10/11

@ Kika,

No, I don’t believe so. Voters have had enough of the waste and incompetence this ship of fools have perpetrated on tax payers. They have had their incompetent snouts in the trough for way too long and have degraded the standard of living in Queensland in the process.  Things like this pathetic bid for a few votes are transparent and inconsequential in fact, I’m positive their political advisors work for the opposition! 

Campbell Newman has a proven track record in the management of infrastructure projects and capacity planning. More importantly, he has been a consultant to government and therefore has a good understanding of the extent of the nepotism, incompetence and skills deficit that currently defines the Queensland public service.  He will romp in.

VVS says:

11:30am | 26/10/11

Kika

I’ll give you 10-1 that the LNP gets into power… minimum bet $5,000.

fairsfair says:

11:50am | 26/10/11

I couldn’t care if the LNP was fronted by Richard Reid and the treasurer was Lindsay Lohan - They’d still have my vote.

TimB says:

12:38pm | 26/10/11

Is it just me or is Kika’s empty bleating one name simple change away from being the exact same anti-LNP bleating that we get on a federal level?

Not much imagination here, clearly.

I hope that in the near future I have the pleasure of congratulating Queensland on joining WA, VIC & NSW in finally shaking off the weight of ALP incompetence.

RyaN says:

07:40pm | 26/10/11

@Kika: Here you go http://liberal.org.au/policies now you have been educated, lets hope you won’t make such a self discrediting claim like that again.
No need to thank me, its implied.

Jane says:

10:30am | 26/10/11

I don’t think the idea is to stop the marriage equality debate at all. Civil Unions are the most a state can do, but will send a clear message to the feds that marriage equality must be done.

AJ says:

09:42pm | 26/10/11

OOOH, nice analogy!  It’s far better than the ones I’ve been using, which usually entail a silly voice.

Dave-o says:

07:54pm | 26/10/11

What hair?

Al says:

02:22pm | 26/10/11

I hold marriage in contempt, whether it be homosexual or hetrosexual.
That doesn’t mean I want to remove everyones right to inflict it upon themselves.

JS says:

05:00pm | 26/10/11

Catch up. we have all moved on from the “human right” thing.

Markus says:

12:49am | 27/10/11

A referendum is to amend the constitution. The Marriage Act is not part of the constitution.
If enough people think that this is a vote-winner, they will vote for a candidate who supports it at the next election.